TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect whereto, timelines for disposal apply and the said timelines cannot be abided by the Court alone if the counsels do not cooperate in the same. There is no reason for non-appearance of the Advocate for the plaintiffs when the matter is called out. 5. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has been heard. 6. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has argued that (i) this suit was instituted by the four plaintiffs namely Saga Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., AMS International B.V., AMS Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and Future Living B.V., initially against the defendant no.1 Bang & Olufsen A/s only; (ii) on the defendant no.1 taking a plea that the agreement on which this suit was premised, was between the plaintiff no.2 AMS International B.V. and M/s. Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC which had not been made a party, the plaintiffs impleaded the said M/s. Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC as defendant no.2 to the suit; (iii) the defendant no.1 applied for deletion from the array of defendants, being not a party to the agreement in writing on which the suit is premised; (iv) the Joint Registrar, by the impugned order has however dismissed the said application; (v) the four plaintiffs have institu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate for the plaintiffs who has since appeared, on being given an opportunity has raised three points in support of the impugned order. Firstly it is contended that the defendant no.2, as of today is a shell company and even if the plaintiffs succeed in obtaining a decree for recovery of money against the defendant no.2, the same would merely be a paper decree. Secondly it is contended that a case for piercing the corporate veil is made out. Thirdly it is contended that the defendant no.1 played an active role in execution of the Agreement(s). 11. The counsel for the plaintiffs wants me to go through the documents in support of his aforesaid arguments. However, on being asked to show the plea if any contained in the plaint in support of the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the plaintiffs though unable to show any pleading to the effect, states that he can always amend the plaint in pursuance to impleadment of the defendant no.2, to take the pleas on the basis of which arguments aforesaid are raised. 12. The fact remains that in spite of the defendant no.2 having been impleaded vide order dated 17th April, 2018, for the last nearly one year no steps in this regard have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 days' delay in filing the reply to IA No.9976/2018 is allowed and disposed of. 18. The Senior Counsel for the defendant no.2 M/s. Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC and the counsel for the plaintiffs have been heard. 19. The Senior Counsel for the defendant no.2 M/s. Bang & Olufsen Middle East FZ LLC, which is now the sole defendant, has drawn attention to the Master Dealer Agreement aforesaid between plaintiff no.2 AMS International B.V. and the defendant no.2, which in Clause 7.10 and 7.11 thereof provides as under: "7.10. Applicable Law 7.10.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom of Denmark. 7.11 Dispute Settlement 7.11.1 In the event that either party gives notice as to any dispute relating to this Agreement to the other party, such dispute being between AMS and B&O, then B&O and AMS agree that the matter in dispute shall be referred to arbitration in Denmark in accordance with the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitrators' decision shall be final and binding. The language of the arbitration shall be English. A copy of these rules is attached to this Agreement as Appendix O." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f original agreement is in possession of the defendants though it was in tatter condition. Further, even after observing and rejecting the application under Section 8 of Act, 1996 on the ground that original agreement was not produced before the Court below, the applicants have not shown the original agreement even to this Court. Therefore, the said case does not provide any help to the defendants/applicants herein." which does not lay down as is contended by the counsel for the plaintiffs. 23. The senior counsel for the defendant on the contrary has drawn attention to AEZ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SNG Developers Ltd. 2014 (211) DLT 215 holding that the objective of filing certified copy is to ensure that there is no dispute apropos existence of the arbitration clause; however it would be pedantic to insist upon compliance of the said provision in a situation where the agreement containing the arbitration clause itself forms the basis of the suit and the said clause itself is clearly admitted by the partyapplying for arbitration and referring to a host of judgments on the said proposition. 24. Reference in this regard may also be made to Ananthesh Bhakta Vs. Nayana S. Bhakta AIR 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and after making detailed pleadings with respect thereto and the actions taken by plaintiff no.2 qua its obligations thereunder, at a huge investment of Rs. 7.65 crores, has pleaded termination thereof by the defendant, without any reason. The plaintiffs thereafter have pleaded that "the plaintiff no.2 through plaintiff no.3 signed a Dealer Agreement dated 4th July, 2007", conveying continuity of the transaction which commenced with the extension of the Master Dealer Agreement containing the arbitration clause. The plaintiffs have pleaded having made investments also in pursuance to the Master Dealer Agreement and have not pleaded any investments under the Dealer Agreement dated 4th July, 2007. The plaintiffs have made a lumpsum claim for Rs. 1,00,01,000/-, without specifying separately the claim of each of the plaintiff or specifying how much claim is with respect to Master Dealer Agreement and how much with respect to Dealer Agreement. 30. Moreover the plaintiffs, as aforesaid, have not filed the Dealer Agreement dated 4th July, 2007 and not made any pleadings with respect thereto. The only assumption is that the money claimed in the present suit is on account of allegations of....