Delve into a complex legal case where the court scrutinizes the details of a land acquisition settlement dispute with precision. The court’s in-depth analysis sheds light on the nuances of the case, providing valuable insights into the legal framework surrounding such disputes.
Facts
- The total amount payable to Respondents No.1 & 2 is Rs.85.97 Crores.
- The Petitioners agree to deposit a shortfall of Rs.29,17,20,477/- within 3 months of lifting the status quo on their properties.
- A Restated Shareholders Agreement (RSHA) and a Restated Share Subscription and Purchase Agreement (RSSPA) were entered into on 02.07.2009.
- An interim order dated 15.09.2017 directed the Appellants to deposit Rs.20,00,00,000/- in the court registry for investment.
- The Appellants filed objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the Delhi High Court.
- The Appellants challenged an award in an ICC arbitration with the seat in New Delhi.
- The Tribunal’s award directed the Appellants to pay various amounts including Simple Interest and legal fees.
- A sale consideration of Rs.99,44,55,000/- was agreed upon for the Project Land acquisitions.
- The Appellants undertook to pay the dues of NOIDA directly.
- GLI agreed to deposit the sale consideration in court after deducting the dues payable to NOIDA.
- The Court found the findings of the arbitral tribunal to be consistent with the terms of the agreement.
- The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge on merits, noting the undisputed fact that Respondents No. 1 and 2 had brought in a sum of Rs. 45,00,27,747 for the project.
- The Appellant challenged the judgment dated 08.05.2017 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was rejected by a division bench of the Delhi High Court.
- The factual background involves the Appellant-Promoters entering into a Shareholders Agreement and a Share Subscription and Purchase Agreement with Respondents No. 1 and 2 on 21.03.2008 for the development of a Special Economic Zone.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Arbitration Petition Limitation Period
Decision
- The entire decree becomes executable after a period of 2 months.
- Balance amount of Rs.46,79,79,523/- to be distributed to Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.2 Ltd. and Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd.
- M/s Good Living Infrastructure to deposit Rs.56,79,79,523/- in the Court registry before enforcement, with a 2-month window for compliance.
- The Bhutani Group can request NOIDA for rescheduling payment within a specific timeframe.
- GLI seeks liberty from the Court to approach NOIDA for rescheduling payment.
- Total additional amount payable to landowners as compensation is Rs.42,64,75,477.
- Challenge to the ICC award is rejected after hearing the counsel for all parties.
- Consent agreement reached regarding the payment of Rs.107.50 crores as settlement to Respondents No.1 and 2.
- Shortfall of Rs.29,17,20,477/- to be deposited by Petitioners with the Court after receiving Rs.56,79,79,523/- from GLI.
- Undertaking by GLI to pay Rs.99,44,55,000/- to acquire the shareholding of IT Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd. from Petitioners and others.
- GLI undertakes not to create any third-party rights or interest over mentioned properties until settlement is paid.
- In case of default, the entire award amount becomes enforceable.
- GLI undertakes to deposit Rs.56,79,79,523/- with the Court within 6 months.
- Balance amount of Rs.29,17,20,477/- to be paid to Respondents No.1 and 2 within 3 months.
- Rs.46,79,79,523/- to be deposited within 4 months with an additional grace period of two months.
- Pending applications are disposed of and the appeal is concluded based on consent terms.
- GLI to apply to NOIDA for rescheduling within one week of Court’s order.
Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142
Case Title: SHAKTI NATH Vs. ALPHA TIGER CYPRUS INVESTMENT NO. 3 LTD (2020 INSC 203)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001674-001674 / 2020
