w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shailendra Bhadauria Promoter Shareholder of Maharana Infrastructure & Professional Services Ltd. & Others v/s Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings LLC & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- A V S R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120TG2005PTC045117

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARANA INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2009PLC036747

Company & Directors' Information:- P. G. INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22122MP2003PTC015758

Company & Directors' Information:- S R HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1988PLC083659

Company & Directors' Information:- S R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1988PTC083659

Company & Directors' Information:- A B HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102KA2006PTC040894

Company & Directors' Information:- S K A HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993DL1981PLC012592

Company & Directors' Information:- S K A HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65993DL1981PLC012592

Company & Directors' Information:- G J HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100DL2004PTC126687

Company & Directors' Information:- G J HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993DL2004PTC126687

Company & Directors' Information:- P V T INVESTMENT LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1988PLC121600

Company & Directors' Information:- P P HOLDINGS LTD [Active] CIN = U65993PN1981PLC025916

Company & Directors' Information:- P V T INVESTMENT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120PB1988PLC008068

Company & Directors' Information:- G S D HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70109WB1990PTC048518

Company & Directors' Information:- MATRIX CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TG2008PTC058555

Company & Directors' Information:- A. N. C. HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923DL2007PTC160030

Company & Directors' Information:- S T HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1979PTC021588

Company & Directors' Information:- V S MATRIX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040510

Company & Directors' Information:- S T INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993WB1990PTC050032

Company & Directors' Information:- M C HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190DL2009PTC190957

Company & Directors' Information:- J S K HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC065660

Company & Directors' Information:- P R HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27310AS1983PLC007154

Company & Directors' Information:- P R HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27310DL1983PLC314402

Company & Directors' Information:- G R A HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1992PTC055865

Company & Directors' Information:- B S S HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1992PTC056874

Company & Directors' Information:- H M HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993ML2005PTC007956

Company & Directors' Information:- S M H HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TG2006PTC049309

Company & Directors' Information:- H. L. INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65990WB1975PLC128186

Company & Directors' Information:- M M HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1993PTC058147

Company & Directors' Information:- D J HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1992PTC067448

Company & Directors' Information:- R S M P HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190MH1995PTC088443

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U65921CT2008PTC020533

Company & Directors' Information:- V A G HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057817

Company & Directors' Information:- G. N. G. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910GJ1981PLC004128

Company & Directors' Information:- K E HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101TN2013PTC089953

Company & Directors' Information:- A S G S INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC173938

Company & Directors' Information:- G L INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1991PTC051072

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. PROMOTER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201WB1997PTC083366

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C INVESTMENT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120AS1976PLC001654

Company & Directors' Information:- S M S INVESTMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1963PTC003988

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1985PTC039793

Company & Directors' Information:- K C HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1981PTC024688

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1961PTC025099

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC028294

Company & Directors' Information:- V R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102KA2009PTC051724

Company & Directors' Information:- H P PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PTC181347

Company & Directors' Information:- J B HOLDINGS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U91110ML1995PLC004396

Company & Directors' Information:- R H INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1978PTC020633

Company & Directors' Information:- T N B INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC025590

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51209MH1978PLC020456

Company & Directors' Information:- P G T HOLDINGS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC057886

Company & Directors' Information:- S M HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH2011PTC225004

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1995PLC018599

Company & Directors' Information:- V N C A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN2011PTC081684

Company & Directors' Information:- S C HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC025017

Company & Directors' Information:- S G HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1986PTC040839

Company & Directors' Information:- K C A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066204

Company & Directors' Information:- A R S INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1990PTC048513

Company & Directors' Information:- S N J HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1997PTC084488

Company & Directors' Information:- H P HOLDINGS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120HP1997PLC019474

Company & Directors' Information:- B K S PROMOTER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC057484

Company & Directors' Information:- V P INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015714

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- K L N HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990TG1986PTC006344

Company & Directors' Information:- M R HOLDINGS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1978PLC020559

Company & Directors' Information:- J T HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1979PTC021585

Company & Directors' Information:- B M D HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN1995PTC031179

Company & Directors' Information:- S M D INVESTMENT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1995PLC033139

Company & Directors' Information:- G R D INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120WB1980PTC032727

Company & Directors' Information:- H K R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013032

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND N INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015710

Company & Directors' Information:- R J HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013033

Company & Directors' Information:- K D R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013034

Company & Directors' Information:- P D R HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120WB1996PTC077248

Company & Directors' Information:- W A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993DL1997PTC084687

Company & Directors' Information:- W D HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993DL1997PTC084667

Company & Directors' Information:- R INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TZ1988PTC002181

Company & Directors' Information:- A K HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899UP1986PTC037306

Company & Directors' Information:- J R D HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059769

Company & Directors' Information:- C S HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110KA1995PTC018441

Company & Directors' Information:- R A HOLDINGS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17119GJ1986PLC037333

Company & Directors' Information:- H N G L INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066774

Company & Directors' Information:- K M S INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP1993PTC015287

Company & Directors' Information:- W. M. F. HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101CT2011PTC022482

Company & Directors' Information:- A V HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC054035

Company & Directors' Information:- U M INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1979PTC032160

Company & Directors' Information:- K B R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120TG1998PTC030518

Company & Directors' Information:- E K HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040323

Company & Directors' Information:- N R HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC060077

Company & Directors' Information:- B P A HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74990DL1982PTC013326

Company & Directors' Information:- V V HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060480

Company & Directors' Information:- D D B HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1992PTC055592

Company & Directors' Information:- M D HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL2001PTC111221

Company & Directors' Information:- A S T INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL1996PTC082812

Company & Directors' Information:- V H A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U65993DL2003PTC120147

Company & Directors' Information:- K E F HOLDINGS LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120WB1988PLC045280

Company & Directors' Information:- B N E INVESTMENT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120WB1974PLC029360

Company & Directors' Information:- A P HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993PN1981PTC025915

Company & Directors' Information:- N. R. HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1993PTC140612

Company & Directors' Information:- K S J INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061335

Company & Directors' Information:- M B HOLDINGS LTD. [Not available for efiling] CIN = U70109WB1986PLC041226

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2006PTC040195

Company & Directors' Information:- K M HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064343

Company & Directors' Information:- H. T. INVESTMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65923MH2011PTC219016

Company & Directors' Information:- A S H HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2004PTC125403

Company & Directors' Information:- S M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC133535

Company & Directors' Information:- P T INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65999WB1995PTC067065

Company & Directors' Information:- C M HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45203WB1986PTC041627

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. R. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992UP1988PLC010253

Company & Directors' Information:- M H HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC067392

Company & Directors' Information:- I K HOLDINGS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1951PLC019703

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U65929WB1991PTC051376

Company & Directors' Information:- J J HOLDINGS LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993WB1980PLC032736

Company & Directors' Information:- K G HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65929WB1987PTC042868

Company & Directors' Information:- B & T HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920DL2007PTC171796

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990KL2016PTC046640

Company & Directors' Information:- H D HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC051415

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND N HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040846

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- M P HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U67120DL1997PTC088350

Company & Directors' Information:- J T INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923WB1979PTC032344

Company & Directors' Information:- B P HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038274

Company & Directors' Information:- K P R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TZ2011PTC017467

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN2002PTC049452

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND V HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65999TN2005PTC057659

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND B HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS1999PTC005674

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL2010PTC198226

Company & Directors' Information:- D S S I INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2004PTC129445

Company & Directors' Information:- D G HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65110DL1998PTC094466

Company & Directors' Information:- I R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC185743

Company & Directors' Information:- S I HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC186043

Company & Directors' Information:- C J G HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101KL2010PTC038559

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INVESTMENT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993WB1969PLC027398

Company & Directors' Information:- U P L HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120OR1990PTC002414

Company & Directors' Information:- N N HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65999WB1990PTC048493

Company & Directors' Information:- O M K HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1995PTC072914

Company & Directors' Information:- M K HOLDINGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1996PTC036985

Company & Directors' Information:- N M G C INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC014603

Company & Directors' Information:- K I HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120MH1981PTC024069

Company & Directors' Information:- MATRIX INDIA PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC110824

Company & Directors' Information:- D R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993DL1982PTC013031

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC017127

Company & Directors' Information:- G J HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U65993PB1985PTC006327

Company & Directors' Information:- M G L HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TN1994PTC029354

Company & Directors' Information:- T M INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1971PTC028172

Company & Directors' Information:- MATRIX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24220DL2008PTC181451

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. F. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1997PLC088611

Company & Directors' Information:- K V R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65191KA2012PTC063353

Company & Directors' Information:- H K (INVESTMENT) COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990GJ1950PTC000511

Company & Directors' Information:- P N INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U65910GJ1988PTC010715

Company & Directors' Information:- R N M HOLDINGS P LTD. [Active] CIN = U65921WB1990PTC050174

Company & Directors' Information:- M D HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120CH1983PTC005399

Company & Directors' Information:- R V HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036577

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U65993KL1942PLC000449

Company & Directors' Information:- B J HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1982PTC028820

Company & Directors' Information:- R S HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1986PTC040255

Company & Directors' Information:- A D HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993WB1976PTC030525

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993WB1988PTC044540

Company & Directors' Information:- R A HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70200WB1986PTC040138

Company & Directors' Information:- A HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1962PTC025617

Company & Directors' Information:- S R M INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1979PTC031888

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Dissolved] CIN = U67120WB1988PTC044464

Company & Directors' Information:- K T R HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC059078

Company & Directors' Information:- B I HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65922WB1988PTC043690

Company & Directors' Information:- E TO E HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999KA2008PTC047780

Company & Directors' Information:- R J INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1976PTC018954

Company & Directors' Information:- INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120MH1991PTC062762

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND C INVESTMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120MH2005PTC151338

Company & Directors' Information:- M A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26106UP2003PTC027990

Company & Directors' Information:- B N K INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1971PTC028169

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1971PTC028170

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74140AS2011PTC010601

Company & Directors' Information:- G L HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Dormant under section 455] CIN = U74996KA2008PTC044867

Company & Directors' Information:- T D INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921CH1987PTC007637

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND M HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67190TG1995PTC021464

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993WB1993PTC060850

Company & Directors' Information:- V K HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27924DL1987PTC027924

Company & Directors' Information:- C G K INVESTMENT P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65910AP1986PTC006088

Company & Directors' Information:- Q AND A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120MH2000PTC127319

Company & Directors' Information:- S K HOLDINGS PVT. LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1988PTC010231

Company & Directors' Information:- BHADAURIA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC017566

Company & Directors' Information:- V A HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KL1986PTC004442

Company & Directors' Information:- L D INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921HP1988PTC008425

Company & Directors' Information:- J A HOLDINGS AND SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203DL1996PTC081481

Company & Directors' Information:- S R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1980PTC008388

Company & Directors' Information:- M T R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67110KA2007PTC042600

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2007PTC163701

Company & Directors' Information:- G K INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TZ1987PTC001919

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TZ1987PTC001920

Company & Directors' Information:- B C K H INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120MH1982PTC026819

Company & Directors' Information:- H V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1997PTC107686

Company & Directors' Information:- C S A HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1995PTC092555

Company & Directors' Information:- K N Z HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120MH1998PTC117331

Company & Directors' Information:- S H HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH2001PTC131041

Company & Directors' Information:- D L HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67100TN2012PTC083929

Company & Directors' Information:- P C T HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101TZ2004PTC010971

Company & Directors' Information:- M J P HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098835

Company & Directors' Information:- M L INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1979PTC032180

Company & Directors' Information:- P H HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1985PTC039369

Company & Directors' Information:- J D S HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993DL1993PTC053637

Company & Directors' Information:- M R S HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL2001PTC113197

Company & Directors' Information:- B S R PROMOTER PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC218707

Company & Directors' Information:- V M R INVESTMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC051555

Company & Directors' Information:- S L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2011PTC212261

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC144859

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M S HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2002PTC117110

Company & Directors' Information:- S & G INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL2012PTC244271

Company & Directors' Information:- R M G HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120MP1987PTC004209

Company & Directors' Information:- B R HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899HR1994PTC064054

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KA2010PTC052295

Company & Directors' Information:- MATRIX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U73200KA2000PTC026472

Company & Directors' Information:- L L INVESTMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67190GJ2009PTC057295

Company & Directors' Information:- S B INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Liquidated] CIN = U99999RJ1959PTC001090

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120PB1995PTC016124

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND D HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120MH1981PTC025882

Company & Directors' Information:- M R B PROMOTER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC143316

Company & Directors' Information:- J R INVESTMENT & SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1975PTC029810

Company & Directors' Information:- M M B INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993RJ1996PTC012698

Company & Directors' Information:- A T HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057216

Company & Directors' Information:- M G A INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1980PTC022406

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND S HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120RJ1996PTC012114

Company & Directors' Information:- D S N INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TG1988PTC008554

Company & Directors' Information:- SHAILENDRA AND CO PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1992PTC051096

Company & Directors' Information:- V. I INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120HR1988PTC030206

Company & Directors' Information:- S K V HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993DL1981PTC012910

Company & Directors' Information:- S M K S HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB1990PTC048498

Company & Directors' Information:- PROFESSIONAL HOLDINGS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65991TN1991PTC020255

Company & Directors' Information:- S J P HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999GJ1981PTC004682

Company & Directors' Information:- R J P INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993GJ1981PTC004678

Company & Directors' Information:- D D P INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910GJ1981PTC004695

Company & Directors' Information:- C J P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999GJ1981PTC004662

Company & Directors' Information:- M P INVESTMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U65993KA1974PTC002646

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U65990KL1946PTC000461

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1943PLC007730

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT SERVICES LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005327

    Commercial Division Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 913 of 2018 with Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 939 of 2018

    Decided On, 03 January 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA

    For the Petitioners: S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate a/w Zal Andhyarujina, Samsher Garud, Bijjal Gandhi i/b Jayakar & Partners, Pravin K. Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w Sanjay Jain, Ashwin Bhadang, Nivit Shrivastava, Sneha Patil, Khushboo Rupan i/b Maniar Srivastava Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, Sharan Jagtiani a/w Nitesh Jain, Juhi Mathur, Aditya Malhotra, Atika Vaz i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, Advocates.



Judgment Text

B.P. Colabawalla J.

1. By these two Arbitration Petitions filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Arbitration Act'), the Petitioners challenge the order dated 4th July, 2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act (for short the 'impugned order'). By the impugned order, pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings, and as an interim measure, the Arbitral Tribunal directed the Petitioners in both Petitions to jointly and severally deposit an amount of Rs.190 Crores, or in the alternative to provide a bank guarantee for the said amount, and deposit the same with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of the impugned order. In addition to the aforesaid direction, the Arbitral Tribunal also restrained the Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 913 of 2018 (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the Arbitral Tribunal) from selling, transferring, alienating, disposing of and / or encumbering their interests (legal, beneficial and/or economic) in any and all the properties of the Petitioners (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the Arbitral Tribunal) where ever located in India or outside, other than in the ordinary course of business, including the properties as listed in Schedule-I to the section 17 application. A similar relief was also granted against the Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 939 of 2018 (Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 before the Arbitral Tribunal). It is being aggrieved by this order, that the present Petitions have been filed.

2. Since both the Arbitration Petitions challenge the same order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in both these Petitions were the Claimants before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 913 of 2018 were Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 939 of 2018 were Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 before the Arbitral Tribunal. For the sake of convenience and ease of reference, I shall hereafter refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Arbitral Tribunal.

3. Before setting out and dealing with the legal submissions of the parties, it would be necessary to set out a few facts. The Claimants are investors in the Respondent No.3 company (Maharana Infrastructure and Professional Services Limited) with the aggregate value of their investment being about Rs.190 Crores. This investment was in the form of the Claimants holding equity shares of the Respondent No.3 company to the extent of Rs.41.37%. The rest of the shares of Respondent No.3 are held by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (who are the promoters) and two others.

4. This investment of Rs.190 Crores was made by the Claimants in different tranches and at different points of time. The inter-se terms of this investment and the rules of the investors are governed by the Share Holders Agreement dated 27th December, 2012 and thereafter supplemented by a supplementary Share Holders Agreement dated 30th July, 2014 and thereafter further amended by the amendment Agreements dated 29th August, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 respectively. For the sake of convenience, all these agreements shall hereafter be collectively referred to as the 'SHA'.

5. Clause 17.3 of the SHA dated 27th December, 2012 contains an arbitration clause. Clause 17.2 provides that in case of any dispute arising between the parties with regard to the subject matter of the agreement, the disputing parties shall in the first instance attempt to resolve it, failing which any disputing party may submit a claim to be settled by arbitration.

6. Pursuant to Clause 17.3 of the said Agreement, the Claimants by their notice dated 2nd August, 2017 invoked arbitration against the Respondents. I must mention here that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are signatories to the arbitration agreement whereas Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are not signatories. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, it was the case of the Claimants that Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are equally bound by the arbitration agreement, inter alia, by reason of their status of being 'group entities' of Respondent No.3 and also by reason of they being the 'alter ego' of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is on this basis that the Claimants invoked the arbitration proceedings against all the Respondents and also filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for interim reliefs, pending the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

7. Suffice it to state that the dispute ultimately landed up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 1st December, 2017 [passed in Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 39 of 2017 with Arbitration Petition Nos. 41, 40 and 45 of 2017] referred the disputes to the Arbitral Tribunal and directed that the question as to whether the alleged non-signatories to the agreement (Respondent Nos. 4 to 7) are to be parties in the arbitral proceedings would be decided by the Arbitrator. Once this order was passed by the Supreme Court, this Court by its order dated 14th December, 2017 (Kathawalla, J.), directed that the Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act be treated as an application under Section 17 and be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. That is how the Arbitral Tribunal decided the application under Section 17 in which the impugned order was passed.

8. The application under Section 17 was made broadly on the ground that the Claimants were apprehensive that their investments were unsafe on account of certain activities alleged against the Respondents. The Claimants also alleged that their rights under the SHA have not been allowed to be exercised and the SHA permitted the Claimants to unconditionally exit from Respondent No.3 on account of an Initial Public Offering (IPO) not having fructified by the deadline of 31st March, 2013. For this purpose, the Claimants placed reliance on Clause No. 8.1 of the SHA and submitted that the said Clause inter alia provided that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 or Respondent No.3 itself was required to purchase the equity shares that the Claimants held in Respondent No.3 at a value to be determined in accordance with Clause 8.5 of the SHA. This is the fundamental and basic dispute which the Claimants raised against the Respondents in the arbitration proceedings.

9. In the arbitration proceedings, the Claimants valued their equity shareholding in Respondent No.3 at approximately Rs. 590 Crores as per the valuation report dated 22nd April, 2017 made by Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP. It is to secure this claim that the Section 9 Petition was filed and which was thereafter converted into an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.

10. The Section 17 application was basically based on the allegations that the conduct of the Respondents show that they have been siphoning monies from Respondent No.3 company to Respondent No.5 (Society) which has thereafter been diverted to the promoters (Respondent Nos.1 and 2) or entities controlled by them. It was the allegation of the Claimants that Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are affiliated societies and related parties to the promoters (Respondent Nos.1 and 2). In turn, Respondent No.3 (and which runs educational and infrastructural development services to affiliated societies, including Respondent No.5), entered into a Master Services Agreement dated 29th March, 2011 as amended by another agreement dated 8th January, 2013 with Respondent No.5. Similar Master Services Agreements were also entered into by Respondent No.3 with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

11. It is the case of the Claimants that under the Master Services Agreement, for consideration of exclusivity and as a performance guarantee, a security deposit of Rs. 20 Crores was to be deposited by Respondent No.3 with Respondent No.5. It is the specific case of the Claimants that during the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14, Respondent No.3 did exceedingly well. On account of this, the Claimants did not object to higher security deposits of Rs.184.86 Crores being placed by Respondent No.3 with Respondent No.5 even though it was much higher than what was contemplated originally under the Master Services Agreement.

12. However, according to the Claimants, during the financial year 2014-15, the Claimants discovered that the financials of Respondent No.3 as represented to them, were completely false and misleading and that the audited financials of Respondent No.3 for the financial year 2014-15 were significantly less than the provisional financial statements forwarded to the Claimants for the said financial year. In these circumstances, the Claimants questioned any further security deposits being placed by Respondent No.3 with the other Respondents. However, without the knowledge and consent of the Claimants, Respondent No.3 placed further security deposits of Rs.92.48 Crores with Respondent No.5 in financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is in view of this conduct of the Respondents and considering that the Claimants were kept in the dark, they engaged the services of Price Water House Coopers Private Limited (for short 'PWC') to carry out a forensic review of Respondent No. 3's financial status. According to the Claimant, PWC provided its findings on 10th April, 2017 which corroborated the suspicions of the Claimants that there was large scale siphoning of monies from Respondent No.3 which were first diverted to Respondent No.5 and ultimately dissipated to the promoters and other related parties/entities.

13. It is the case of the Claimants that in addition to the instances of siphoning monies from Respondent No.3, the Claimants found that there were various other fundamental breaches of the SHA. For instance, the holding of the 7th AGM of the Respondent No.3 company was without notice to the Claimants and several affairs of Respondent No.3 were being conducted in breach of the Claimants' affirmative voting rights. According to the Claimants, their affirmative voting rights have been deliberately and systematically denied by Respondent No.3 and its promoters so much so that even the statutory right of inspection of the books of accounts was denied to the Claimants for a long period of time. To put it in a nutshell, in view of all this, the Claimants ultimately filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before this Court and which was then converted into an application under Section 17 to be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal.

14. This application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal was opposed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by filing their affidavit. The crux of the case made out therein was that, there was no breach of the terms of the SHA by the Respondents; that the IPO could not fructify in time because of the defaults on the part of the Claimants; that all dealings between Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were on a Arms Length Basis; that the deposits were correctly given by Respondent No.3 to Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 under the terms of the SHA read with the Master Services Agreement; and that the forensic report submitted by PWC was one sided and could not be relied upon. To put it in a nutshell in substance Respondent Nos.1 and 3 denied that there was any justification for making any interim orders as prayed for.

15. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 also filed an affidavit taking up the stand that the arbitration proceedings and any applications made therein were not tenable against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as there was no contractual privity nor any arbitration agreement between any of the Claimants and Respondent Nos.5 to 7. It was contended that the Section 17 application was not sustainable against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and further contended that in any event all the transactions had taken place on an Armed Length Basis, as was evident from the facts on record. In the result, Respondent Nos.5 to 7 prayed for rejecting the application for any reliefs against them.

16. When the application under Section 17 was taken up by the Arbitral Tribunal on 12th February, 2018, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 stated that although the statement of claim had been filed on 1st February, 2018, the Written Statement of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 was required to be filed by 15th March, 2018. It was therefore requested that it would be more appropriate if the Section 17 application is heard after the Written Statement has been taken on record as Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would not be able to bring any of the factual details before said date. Similarly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submitted that in the reply filed to the Section 9 Petition (and which was now converted into Section 17 application) they had merely objected to being made parties and they had no opportunity of dealing with the factual aspects pleaded in the Petition.

17. Taking all this into consideration, by an order dated 12th February, 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal directed the Claimants to make their submissions on all points of facts and law including the issue as to whether Respondent Nos.5 to 7 could be made parties to the arbitration proceedings. The Tribunal also directed that by a short speaking order, the Tribunal would indicate whether Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have been properly made parties, and if so, they would be given an opportunity for dealing with the factual averments made in the application under Section 17 before being called upon to make any submissions. It is in these circumstances that the application under Section 17 was heard on 12th February, 2018 and 13th February, 2018 during the course of which the Claimants made their submissions on facts and law including the question as to whether the arbitration proceedings could be tenable against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. The matter was thereafter posted for further hearing on 22nd and 23rd March, 2018.

18. On 22nd March, 2018, the Claimants concluded their submissions. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 made their submissions on the tenability of the proceedings which were thereafter continued on 23rd March, 2018. At that stage and once those submissions were completed, the Tribunal took the view that Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were necessary parties, although no reasons were adduced for the decision at that stage in view of the directions already given in the order dated 12th February, 2018, namely, that the reasons would be contained in the final order disposing of the application under Section 17 to the Arbitration Act. Hence, further proceedings were fixed on 24th and 25th April, 2018.

19. On 24th April, 2018, three applications were made for adjournment. On the said date, the Tribunal passed a detailed order indicating tortuous course of the proceedings and why the matters would not be adjourned as requested. One of the applications reiterated the following preliminary objections and requested the Tribunal to decide them as preliminary issues. They were as under:-

'Issue No.1: Whether the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide this dispute in view of the bar under Secs.241, 242 and 430 of the Company's Act, 2013?

Issue No.2: Whether the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator can without first disclosing the reasons for holding that it is necessary that 'the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are made parties to the present proceedings hear on merits the interim application under Sec.17 of the Act?

Issue No.3: Whether the preliminary issue set-forth at Issue No.1 above is required to be disposed of first before the interim application under Sec.17 of the Act can be heard?'

20. In view of the fact that Respondent No.3 repeatedly asked for adjournment on one ground or the another, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an ad-interim order on 24th April, 2018 and cancelled the hearing fixed on 25th April, 2018 and adjourned the hearing of the application on 7th and 8th May, 2018. Submissions on behalf of all the Respondents were started on 7th May, 2018 and completed on 8th May, 2018. The Claimants also completed their submissions in rejoinder on the said date. It is thereafter that the impugned order came to be passed on 4th July, 2018.

21. On going through the impugned order, I find that the preliminary issues raised by the Respondents and as set out by me earlier are dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal in great detail from paragraphs 16 to 37 thereof (pages 52 to 80 of the paper book).

22. To put it in a nutshell, on Issue No.1 regarding jurisdiction to decide the dispute in view of the bar under Sections 241, 242 and 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Arbitral Tribunal, after discussing the law on the subject, inter alia came to the conclusion that the arbitration proceedings were not one which would legitimately fall within the purview of Sections 241, 242 and 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 nor was it a matter which would fall exclusively within the special jurisdiction of the NCLT. The Tribunal took the view that the dispute referred to it was a purely contractual dispute which could very well be entertained and adjudicated by a Civil Court / Arbitral Forum. It is for this reason it overruled the first preliminary issue. Issue No.2 regarding the joinder of Respondent Nos.5 to 7 to the arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal, by applying the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v/s Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. [(2013) 1 SCC 641], came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to decide the claims made against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. In view of the findings of the Tribunal with reference to Issue No.1, Issue No.3 and as reproduced by me earlier did not survive.

23. I must mention here that Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 also contended that they being societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, were not sued in the name of the concerned office bearers identified and determined as per the respective Rules and Regulations, and hence the proceedings against them were not tenable. This argument was also negated by the Arbitral Tribunal.

24. Thereafter, from paragraph 38 onwards, the Arbitral Tribunal examined the merits of the matter and whether the Claimants had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. This discussion of the Arbitral Tribunal can be found from paragraphs 38 to 47 of the impugned order (pages 80 to 94 of the paper book). While examining the merits of the matter, the Arbitral Tribunal placed reliance on the PWC report and the submissions made in relation thereto. The Claimants alleged that the PWC report was prepared principally on the Respondents' own documents which were forwarded by the Respondents to the Claimants, and therefore, the said report was eminently reliable. They submitted that the only reply given by the Respondents to the said PWC report was that the same was bogus, inequitable and unilateral. Apart from this vague and bald denial, no attempt was made by the Respondents to impugn the findings in the said PWC report on any rational ground. In a nutshell, it was the case of the Claimants that apart from merely stating that the PWC report was bogus, inequitable and unilateral, there was absolutely no explanation given or reasons stated as to why the said report, at least at the prima facie stage, could not be relied upon. As far the contents of the PWC report are concerned, the Claimants highlighted the following facts in support of their case for grant of interim reliefs:-

i. The audited financial statements of the financial year 2014-2015 was shared with Claimant No.3 on 17th March 2016 and exhibited a significant decline in the profit and revenues when compared with the provisional financial statements for the said period which had been sent to the Claimants and which showed Respondent No.3 to be quite profitable and growing. The difference between the provisional financial statement and the audited financial statement were quite stark and worrying.

ii. Though the Claimants disputed the audited financial statements for financial year 2014- 2015, they were purportedly adopted at an AGM of Respondent No.3 convened on 29th December, 2015 and it is the case of the Claimants that this AGM was held without notice to the Claimants in breach of Clause 6.8.2 of the S.H.A. and also in violation of Section 101 of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite this allegation being made, the Respondents did not produce any proof of the notice of the said AGM having been served on the Claimants.

iii. The PWC Forensic Review (paragraph 2.26) shows that approximately Rs.24 Crores were paid by Respondent No.5 (MPEC) to Respondent No.1 (Mr.Shailendra Bhaduria), his family members and a related party by the name 'Essbee Media Private Limited'. The only explanation given in the affidavit by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in their affidavit in rejoinder dated 16th August 2018 is that the same was extended "in the normal course of business". Apart from this bare statement, there is no explanation as to what the normal course of business was that required such big payments to be made to Respondent No.1, his family members and related parties.

iv. The PWC Review (vide paragraph 5.18) also shows that there is wide discrepancy between services provided by a service provider and the nature of services sought to have been availed by Respondent No.3 Company. For instance, Mahalaxmi Traders, a dealer of marble, is claimed to have given advertisement services to Respondent No.3 including media hoarding services. Similarly, Respondent No.3 claims to have availed of curriculum development and Rural Development related services from Core Vertical Trade Private Limited, when the said Company is a commission agent, commodity brokers and auctioneers.

25. It was further contended by the Claimants that the balance-sheets of Respondent No.5 for the Financial Years 2010 to 2017 (and filed as Annexures to the reply affidavit dated 13th April, 2018), revealed questionable advances/loans inter-se between the Respondents and escalation of deposit/security amounts. Whilst the balance-sheet showed inter-party transactions amongst the Respondents being negligible in the Financial Year 2010-11, they had drastically increased after the Claimants' investment in Respondent No.3. This, according to the Claimants, at least prima facie indicated an attempt to divert/diversify the finances. The Claimants also pointed out before the Arbitral Tribunal (from balance-sheet of Respondent No.5), the inter-party/related party transactions which were seriously questioned. They were:-

i. Respondent No.1 (Shailendra Bhaduria) advanced an unsecured loan to Respondent No.5 in Financial Year 2010-11 of an amount of Rs.1,45,448/- which came down to Rs.45,448/ - in Financial Year 2011-12. Subsequently, approximately an amount of Rs.11 Crores appears to have been extended by Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.1 for which there is no explanation except a bare statement that the same "were duly accounted for on production of end-utilization production bills". No other material has been placed on record from which the appropriateness of the transaction can be examined.

ii. Advances have been made by Respondent No.5 to other Respondents and their family members as seen from the following instances:

(a) Respondent No.2 (Mrs.Surabhi Bhaduria) was advanced an amount of Rs.1,49,44,349.72 by Respondent No.5 for the first time in Financial Year 2012-13. This declined sharply in Financial Year 2013-14 and then increased once again approximately to Rs.76 lakhs in Financial Year 2014-15.

(b) Respondent No.1 received an advance of approximately Rs.10 crores in Financial Year 2014-15 which is seen to have increased to Rs.11.03 crores in Financial Year 2015-16.

(c) Respondent No.1 (Shailendra Bhaduria) and his family members along with Respondent No.2 were advanced amounts of approximately Rs.13 crores in Financial Year 2016-17.

iii. For the Financial Year 2016-17 (as on 31st March 2017) as seen from the balance sheet dated 23rd October 2017, advances by Respondent No.5 to the family members of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 have completely vanished from the balance sheet without any plausible explanation or justification.

iv. That there were inter-party/related party transactions with Respondent No.3 which appeared to be doubtful and suspicious. In Financial Year 2013-14, Respondent No.3 Company is shown as a creditor of Respondent No.5 to the extent of Rs.17 crores and that the said amount is shown under the head "Unsecured Loans" and to the extent of Rs.33.7 crores under the heading ''Sundry Creditors'. Respondent No.3 seems to have further extended credit of Rs.75 crores in addition to the deposit of Rs.267 crores as on 31st March 2015. Suddenly, the credit from Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 was reduced by Rs.75 crores in the previous years to Rs.17 crores in Financial year 2015-16. There is no explanation as to whether Respondent No.5 has repaid the amount of Rs.58 crores and in what manner. Despite being shareholders of Respondent No.3 Company, the Claimants are kept completely in the dark on this issue.

v. In the Financial Year 2015-16, Respondent No.5 had advanced Rs.10,54,11,057/- to ‘Advance Medical Science & Educational Society’, of which Respondent No.1 and Respondent no.2 are the Chairman and Secretary respectively. In Financial Year 2016-17, the advances outstanding to the said Society were Rs.5,92,17,293/-, but there is no information as to how the repayment had been done. Nothing is discernible from the balance sheet of Respondent No.5.

vi. That the said ‘Advance Medical Science & Education Society’ has been debarred by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare from accepting students for academic year 2017-18 and 2018-19 on account of various deficiencies in faculty, residents, clinical material and infrastructure. The Writ Petition filed by the said Society is disposed of without any relief being granted to the Society on the question of admitting students in the academic year 2017-18. In these circumstances, the Claimants impugn the large amounts of advances given to ‘Advance Medical Science & Educational Society’ as wholly doubtful and suspicious.

vii. In Financial Year 2015-16, approximately Rs.24.74 crores were advanced by Respondent No.5 to Essbee Media Private Limited (related party of the Respondents) and security deposits of Rs.6.19 crores were also advanced in the same year. Although Essbee Media Private Limited provides printing and publishing services to Respondent No.3, Respondent No.3 has availed curriculum development services from Essbee Media Private Limited. There is inconsistency in the nature of services availed and the nature of services available from Essbee Media Private Limited, according to the Claimants.

viii. Mahalaxmi Traders is a related party of the Respondents. This entity first received an advance of Rs.35 Lakhs from Respondent No.5 in Financial Year 2011-12. The amount of advance stood increased to Rs.70 lakhs in Financial year 2012-13. For the first time in Financial Year 2013-14, Mahalaxmi Traders is reflected in the balance sheet of Respondent No.5 as a "Sundry Creditor' to the extent of Rs.3.06 crores. The credit advance to Mahalaxmi Traders increased in subsequent years to Rs.8 crores in the Financial Year 2014-15 and further to Rs.13.16 crores in the Financial Year 2015-16.

26. It is on the basis of all these instances and factors that the Claimants alleged that there was diversion of funds invested by the Claimants in Respondent No.3 and also round tripping of money into the pockets of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other family members. The facts as set out above were not disputed before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 44 clearly records that despite all these serious allegations, apart from a bare denial and characterization of the PWC report as bogus and one sided, there was no serious attempt made to meet with the serious allegations made by the Claimants. The Tribunal further recorded that even during the submissions made before the Tribunal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not make any submissions with regard to the material allegations against them. The only attempt made was to contend that the Claims and the application were beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and therefore, no relief could be granted. What is important to note is that it is nobody's case that this recording of the Arbitral Tribunal is an incorrect recording in the impugned order.

27. Be that as it may, the Arbitral Tribunal, upon a consideration of the material on record was prima facie satisfied that the Claimants had made out a case for grant of interim reliefs as prayed for and thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order. As mentioned earlier, by the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to jointly and severally deposit an amount of Rs.190 Crores or in the alternative to provide a bank guarantee for the said amount. In addition thereto, the Respondents were also restrained from alienating, transferring, disposing of and/or encumbering any of their properties. It is this order that is challenged before me under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

28. At the outset, Mr. Jagtiani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimants (Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both Petitions), submitted that paragraphs 13 to 37 of the impugned order deal with preliminary issues that were framed by the Arbitral Tribunal as to whether the proceedings before it were tenable and whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration proceedings. All these questions were answered in favour of the Claimants and all the objections with reference to jurisdiction were overruled by the Arbitral Tribunal. This being the case, Mr. Jagtiani raised a preliminary objection that the findings given by the Arbitral Tribunal on jurisdictional issues cannot be challenged at this stage and can be challenged only once the final award is passed and if the same is adverse the Respondents. In this regard he brought to my attention the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. He, therefore, submitted that all the Respondents to the arbitration can only challenge the impugned order insofar as it relates to the merits of the case.

29. On the other hand, Mr. Kamdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.913 of 2018), submitted that Respondent Nos.1 to 4 had not filed any application under Section 16 before the Arbitral Tribunal, and therefore, there was no occasion for the Arbitral Tribunal to consider the aforesaid jurisdictional issues. The findings given by the Arbitral Tribunal were only prima facie in nature to consider whether reliefs can be granted to the Claimants or otherwise. He submitted that if they are prima facie in nature, those prima facie findings can certainly be challenged and to show that even prima facie the Arbitral Tribunal had gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that it could entertain the claim filed by the Claimants.

30. As far as Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are concerned, Mr. Samdani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said Respondents, very fairly stated before me that they had raised these jurisdictional issues before the Arbitral Tribunal which were decided by the Arbitral Tribunal in the impugned order, and therefore, Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not challenging the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal on the jurisdictional issues at this stage and they would challenge the same if and when Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 suffer an Award and the same is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

31. I will deal with this issue first. Section 16 of the Arbitration Act deals with the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. Section 16 reads thus:-

'16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.-

(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose,-

(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and

(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.

(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator.

(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings.

(4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to in subsection (2) or sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it considers the delay justified.

(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.

(6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34.'

32. Section 16(1) provides that the Arbitral Tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. For that purpose, an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Section 16(1) further provides that a decision by the Arbitral Tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 stipulates that a plea that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence. However, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of an arbitrator. Section 16(3) deals with a plea about the Arbitral Tribunal exceeding the scope of its authority and stipulates that such a plea shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. Sub-section (4) of Section 16 gives discretion to the Arbitral Tribunal to admit a plea regarding its jurisdiction or authority even at a later stage than the one referred to in subsection (2) or sub-section (3), if it considers that the delay is justified. Sub-section (5) stipulates that when the Arbitral Tribunal decides on a plea referred to in sub-section (2) or subsection (3) and it takes a decision rejecting such a plea, it shall continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. In other words, what sub-section (5) of Section 16 stipulates is that when a jurisdictional issue is raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and the Arbitral Tribunal rules that it has jurisdiction, then, the arbitral proceedings would continue until they culminate into an arbitral Award. The plea of jurisdiction, when rejected, cannot be challenged before the Court at that stage. It can only be challenged when the final Award is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This is clear from an exfacie reading of Section 16(6). This becomes further clear when one reads Section 16 with Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. In fact, Section 37, and which deals with appealable orders clearly stipulates that an Appeal shall lie from the orders as mentioned therein (and from no others). Section 37(2)(a) specifically stipulates that an Appeal shall lie to a Court from an order of the Arbitral Tribunal accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 16. In other words, what Section 37(2)(a) stipulates is that where the Arbitral Tribunal rules that it has no jurisdiction or that the dispute before it exceeds the scope of its authority, then, an Appeal shall lie from such an order of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. However, if such pleas are rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, then, no Appeal would lie under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The rejection of such a plea then can only be challenged when the arbitral award is challenged under section 34 of the Act. This position is very clear on an ex-facie reading of Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.

33. Having said this, we shall now examine the preliminary issues raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and which have been reproduced by me earlier. As recorded in the impugned order itself, that one of the applications filed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 reiterated the preliminary objections and requested the Tribunal to decide them as preliminary issues. Issue No.1 was whether the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute in view of the bar under Sections 241, 242 as well as other provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. As far this issue is concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal has ruled that it has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. As mentioned earlier, the findings on this issue can be found in paragraphs 19 to 26 of the impugned order. Since the Arbitral Tribunal has ruled that it has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, in my view, the findings given with reference to this issue cannot be subjected to an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act at this stage. The Respondents will always be at liberty to challenge the findings on this issue, if they suffer an Award adverse to them and the same is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

34. As far as Issue No.2 is concerned, the said issue was with reference to Respondent Nos.5 to 7 being made parties to the arbitration proceedings. This issue categorically called upon the Arbitral Tribunal to disclose the reasons for holding that Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are necessary parties to the present proceedings before hearing the interim application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act on merits. In other words, what this issue called upon the Arbitral Tribunal to decide was that whether it had jurisdiction to pass any orders against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 especially considering that they were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. This issue also was decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and it came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction even over Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. It came to this conclusion by relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd (supra). The Arbitral Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction over Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, the findings on this issue also cannot be challenged in an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. These findings can be challenged by the concerned Respondents, if they ultimately suffer an Award adverse to them and the same is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. I must mention here that as a part of Issue No.2, an issue was also raised whether the proceedings against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 would lie in view of the fact that they were societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and they had not been sued in the name of the concerned office bearers identified and determined as per the respective Rules and Regulations. This plea of Respondent No.5 to 7 was also rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. Hence, even the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal on this issue cannot be challenged at this stage and can be challenged if the concerned Respondents ultimately suffer an Award and which is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

35. As far as Issue No.3 is concerned, it called upon the Arbitral Tribunal to decide Issue No.1 first, before deciding the section 17 application. Accordingly, Issue No.1 was decided by the Arbitral Tribunal inter alia holding that the dispute between the parties was a purely contractual dispute which could be decided by a Civil Court / Arbitral Tribunal. It would not be one which would legitimately fall within the purview of Sections 241, 242 and other provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 nor was it a matter which would fall exclusively within the special jurisdiction of the NCLT. The Arbitral Tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the Claimants and the Respondents. It was thereafter that the section 17 application was decided on merits, namely, whether the Claimants had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim reliefs. This being the case, the Respondents could have no grievance because Issue No.1 was decided first and thereafter the Arbitral Tribunal decided the section 17 application, albeit the reasons on all jurisdictional issues were given in the impugned order.

36. Looking to all these facts, it is clear that all the preliminary issues that the Arbitral Tribunal was called upon to decide were touching the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. These issues have been decided by the Arbitral Tribunal by giving detailed reasons, albeit in the same order that decides the Section 17 application. In fact, this was also made clear to the parties by the Arbitral Tribunal vide its order passed on 12th February, 2018. In this order, the Tribunal directed the Claimants to make their submissions on all points of facts and law including the jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal also directed that it would indicate whether Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were necessary and proper parties and if so, they would be given an opportunity for dealing with the factual averments made in the Section 17 application before being called upon to make their submissions. It is in these circumstances that the reasons on the jurisdictional issues have been set forth by the Arbitral Tribunal in the impugned order which also decides whether the Claimants are entitled to any interim reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. I, therefore, find that the objection raised by Mr. Jagtiani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimants, that I cannot give any finding on the jurisdictional issues at this stage, to be well founded.

37. I am unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Kamdar that the findings given by the Arbitral Tribunal on these issues are only prima facie, and therefore, I can look into these findings to examine whether prima facie the Tribunal had jurisdiction or otherwise. The Tribunal has taken its decision holding that it has jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties and having done so, these findings certainly cannot be challenged under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act at this stage. These findings, if at all, can be challenged by the Respondents if they suffer an Award adverse to them and the same is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. I, therefore, find that the objection raised by Mr. Jagtiani is fully justified and is required to be upheld.

38. Having said this, I shall now turn my attention as to whether the Claimants made out a prima facie case for grant of reliefs as prayed for in their Section 17 application. In this regard, Mr. Kamdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had gone completely wrong in not only directing the Respondents to deposit Rs. 190 Crores, but then further went on to grant an injunction restraining all the Respondents from creating third party rights and/or interests in all their properties, assets etc. He submitted that this could never have been done by the Tribunal considering the concession made by the Claimants as recorded in paragraph 46 of the impugned order. Mr. Kamdar submitted that paragraph 46 of the impugned order categorically records that 'the Applicants at this stage' (namely, at the stage of the Section 17 application) would be satisfied if the actual amount of invested money was protected pending the further proceedings. Mr. Kamdar submitted that it is an admitted position that the actual amount invested by the Claimants was a sum of Rs. 190 Crores. This being the position, the Tribunal could not have ordered deposit of Rs.190 Crores and also granted the injunction, was the submission.

39. Mr. Kamdar further submitted that an injunction of the nature that was granted by the Arbitral Tribunal against all the Respondents would hamper the entire business activity of the Respondents and would virtually bring it to a standstill. Merely because the Tribunal was of the opinion that the balance-sheets and the PWC report allegedly reveal questionable advances/loss inter-se between the Respondents and an escalation of the deposit/security amounts from Respondent No.3 to Respondent Nos.5 to 7, and that too without there being any material proof that the transactions were questionable or doubtful or suspicious, the Arbitral Tribunal could not have blindly accepted the contention of the Claimants and thereafter pass the interim order as sought for by the Claimants. Mr. Kamdar submitted that though the Tribunal has placed heavy reliance on the PWC report, and which was seriously disputed by the Respondents in their reply, the same clearly revealed that it was unilateral and a one sided report based on the material supplied by the Claimants to PWC. Mr. Kamdar further submitted that the PWC report is partisan report and at the highest is an unproven opinion of an expert. This being the case, before any relief could be granted to the Claimants, they had to make out an independent prima facie case. In these circumstances, the Tribunal had completely gone wrong in placing heavy reliance on the PWC report, was the submission of Mr. Kamdar.

40. Mr. Kamdar then submitted that the order for deposit and even the order of injunction did not meet the standards as set out under Order 38 or Order 39 of the CPC to enable the Tribunal to pass such drastic interim orders. In this regard he took me through the averments in the Petition filed by the Claimants and submitted that no case was made out for granting such drastic reliefs. He submitted that all the balance-sheets of the company were known to the Claimants and in fact all of them have been signed by the Claimants. This being the case, and the Claimants being fully aware of all transactions, could not make any grievance that they were kept in the dark or that the Respondents were acting in collusion with each other and behind the back of the Claimants to allegedly siphon away all the Claimants' investments. In this regard, Mr. Kamdar relied upon Emails dated 8th August, 2014 and 25th February, 2015 addressed by the Respondents to the Claimants. These Emails form part of the compilation of documents that was tendered on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 before me and is at pages 2482 and 2484 respectively. Relying upon these Emails, Mr. Kamdar submitted that this clearly showed that the Claimants were in the full know of things including the deposits that were given by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5. He submitted that these Emails were suppressed before the Arbitral Tribunal and therefore the Claimants had approached the Tribunal with unclean hands and on this ground also the Claimants were not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

41. Mr. Kamdar then submitted that the claim in the arbitration is nothing but a claim for damages and this being the case, to secure such a claim, an order of deposit of Rs.190 Crores could never have been made. This is more-so when one takes into consideration that the Respondents are carrying on business of conducting educational institutions involving a large number of students, faculty and employees. This order of deposit would cause a greater hardship to the Respondents than to the Claimants and which was completely lost sight of by the Arbitral Tribunal. Mr. Kamdar further submitted that the SHA governs the inter-se rights between the parties to the said SHA and admittedly each of the Claimants had entered into separate SHAs for the purpose of investing in the share capital of Respondent No.3. It was therefore submitted that the rights and liabilities of each of the Claimants and cause of action (if any), or entitlement to relief, was a separate, distinct and an independent cause of action. Hence, the claim made was also bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, was the submission.

42. Mr. Kamdar then submitted that admittedly the transactions between Respondent No.3 and Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were of refundable security deposits and which was to the knowledge of the Claimants. This is clearly borne out even by the averments in the Petition filed seeking interim reliefs. Mr. Kamdar submitted that even assuming that there were incorrect or fraudulent entries in the books of Respondent No.5, the same could not be a ground for granting reliefs against Respondent Nos.1 to 4. To put it differently Mr. Kamdar submitted that looking into the books of accounts of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, relief could not be granted against Respondent Nos.1 to 4. He further submitted that what the Arbitral Tribunal had effectively done was to pierce the corporate veil and thereafter proceeded to grant relief. This could not be permitted and especially in arbitration proceedings, was the submission. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Kamdar submitted that the impugned order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be sustained and ought to be set aside in Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Kamdar relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Wind World (India) Limited and Others v/s Enercon GmbH and another [Arbitration Petition (L)No.374 of 2016 decided on 29th March, 2016].

(ii) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v/s M/s Jindal Drilling and Industries Limited [Arbitration Petition No. 587 of 2014 decided on 28th April, 2015]

(iii) Balwant Rai Saluja Another v/s Air India Limtied and Others [(2014) 9 SCC 407].

(iv) K. D. Sharma v/s Steel Authority of India Limited and Others [(2008) 12 SCC 481].

43. Mr. Samdani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 (the Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.939/2018), basically adopted the arguments canvassed by Mr. Kamdar. In addition to the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Samdani submitted that admittedly Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were not signatories to the arbitration agreement and were sought to be sued as a related party. He brought to my attention the prayers in the Statement of Claim filed in the arbitration proceedings and submitted that there was no direct prayer against Respondent Nos.5 to 7. The prayers against Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were all indirect prayers, namely, to direct Respondent No.5 to repay and restitute the refundable security deposit placed with it by Respondent No.3 to enable Respondent No.3 to satisfy its payment obligation to the Claimants under the SHA. He submitted that no direct relief was sought against Respondent No.5 to 7. This being the case, he submitted that if no direct final relief was sought against Respondent Nos.5 to 7, no interim relief could be granted against them either. This was for the simple reason that interim relief is always granted in the aid of the final relief and if no direct final relief is claimed, then, there was no question of granting any interim relief.

44. Mr. Samdani then submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal, while granting relief under Section 17, either of deposit, attachment before judgment or an injunction, is bound by the same principles and conditions as set out under Order 38 or Order 39 of the CPC. In other words, Mr. Samdani submitted that before granting the reliefs sought for by the Claimants, the Arbitral Tribunal had to be satisfied that the conditions laid down under the provisions of Order 38 or Order 39 have been duly complied with by the Claimants. In the facts of the present case, Mr. Samdani submitted that those conditions were not satisfied by the Claimants and hence they were not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

45. Over and above this, Mr. Samdani also laid great stress on paragraph 46 of the impugned order wherein, according to Mr. Samdani, a statement was recorded on behalf of the Claimants that they would be satisfied if the actual amount of invested money is protected pending the further proceedings. He submitted that in light of this statement made on behalf of the Claimants, it was highly unjustified that Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were injuncted from dealing with all their properties and whose value, according to Mr. Samdani, was far in excess of even the entire claim made in the arbitration proceedings. In other words, Mr. Samdani submitted that the injunction granted against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 was highly excessive and ought to be set aside on that ground alone. As far as the deposit order is concerned, Mr. Samdani fairly did not repeat the arguments that were canvassed by Mr. Kamdar and only adopted the same that there was no justification for passing an order of deposit as no case was made out for such a drastic order. In these circumstances, Mr. Samdani submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained and ought to be set aside.

46. In support of all his propositions, Mr. Samdani relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Adhunik Steels Ltd v/s Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. [(2007) 7 SCC 125].

(ii) Raman Tech and Process Engg. Co and Another v/s Solanki Traders. [(2008) 2 SCC 302].

(iii) Nimbus Communications Ltd v/s Board of Control For Cricket In India. [2013 (1) Mh. L. J. 39].

(iv) Board of Control for Cricket in India v/s Jaipur IPL Cricket Private India Limited. [Arbitration Appeal (L)No. 30742 of 2010 decided on 14th December, 2010].

(v) Jagdish Singh v/s Madhuri Devi [(2008) 10 SCC 497].

47. On the other hand, Mr. Jagtiani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimants, submitted that there was no merit in the contentions canvassed by the Respondents. He submitted that all these arguments that are now being canvassed before me and on the merits of the application, were never canvassed before the Tribunal. In fact, on the merits of the matter, Mr. Jagtiani was at pains to point out the findings of the Tribunal at paragraph 44 where the Tribunal specifically records that apart from a bare denial and characterization of the PWC report as bogus and one sided, there was no serious attempt made to meet with the serious allegations made by the Claimants. The only attempt made before the Tribunal was to contend that the disputes were beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and hence no interim relief could be granted.

48. Mr. Jagtiani then submitted that the Respondents have completely misconstrued the statement of the Claimants that was recorded in paragraph 46 of the impugned order. Prayer (a) of the Section 17 application was for liquid security and not with reference to the injunctions that were prayed for. He submitted that prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Section 17 application sought for to secure the entire amount of Rs. 590 Crores. It was in relation to these prayers that a statement was made that for the time being the Claimants would be satisfied if the actual amount of the invested money is protected pending further proceedings. In other words, Mr. Jagtiani submitted that it was only with reference to the prayers of liquid security that the Claimants stated before the Tribunal that they would be satisfied if amount of Rs.190 Crores was furnished as liquid security. That statement does not in any way give up their claim or dis-entitle them to the relief of injunction. He submitted that in fact the relief of injunction was granted in favour of the Claimants by the Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 24th April, 2018 and which was granted as an ad-interim relief. He, therefore, submitted that it was completely incorrect on the part of the Respondents to contend that the injunction could operate only until the deposit was made or that the injunction was sufficient to secure the claim of the Claimants and therefore there was no need to pass an order of deposit of a sum of Rs.190 Crores. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that even the Arbitral Tribunal understood the statement of Claimants in the same manner and therefore, after recording the statement of the Claimants that for the time being they are restricting their claim to the actual amount of money invested in Respondent No.3 (in paragraph 46), proceeded to grant the relief of deposit of Rs.190 crores as well as the injunctive reliefs as prayed for (in paragraph 47 of the impugned order).

49. As far as the argument canvassed by the Respondents that the injunction was excessive in nature, Mr. Jagtiani submitted that this was highly unfair to the Arbitral Tribunal. He submitted that this Court had passed an order asking the Respondents to disclose their assets along with the value of each asset as well as the status thereof. Though the affidavit was filed, neither the necessary information was given nor was the status of the properties disclosed. He submitted that in fact Respondent Nos.5 to 7 have categorically made a statement in their reply that all their assets are encumbered. This being the factual position, and since the Respondents did not disclose to the Tribunal as to what was the value of their assets, the Tribunal has no choice but to grant an injunction in relation to all the assets belonging to the Respondents. He submitted that the Respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong by first not disclosing the value of the assets and thereafter contend that the injunction is excessive.

50. As far as the contention of the Respondents that no case has been made out for granting such drastic orders, Mr. Jagtiani took me through PWC report. He submitted that the PWC report clearly indicated that there were many transactions which caste a doubt on how money was being taken out from Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 and thereafter routed to the promoters, namely, Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal has examined the PWC report in the great detail in the impugned order and thereafter found that the Claimants have made out a prima facie case. It was the submission of Mr. Jagtiani that none of the allegations and the transactions referred to in the PWC report (and on which the reliance was placed by the Claimants), were seriously disputed by the Respondents. This being the case, the Arbitral Tribunal, and in the absence of any explanation given by the Respondents in this regard, could not be faulted for relying upon the observations in the report of the PWC to come to a prima facie finding whether the Claimants had made out a case or not. He submitted that at least as far as the injunction granted against Respondent Nos.5 to 7 is concerned, they cannot make any grievance with reference to the same because in their affidavit in reply, Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have themselves stated that they have no intention of disposing of any of their properties. This being the case, there was nothing wrong in granting injunctive reliefs against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 restraining them from disposing of their properties except in usual course of business, was the submission. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that it now turns out that the apprehension of the Claimants is well founded because even after the injunction order was passed by the Tribunal, the Respondents have alienated several of their properties and which has been recorded by this Court in its order dated 29th October, 2018 in Chamber Summons No. 1030 of 2018 in Commercial Execution Application No. 2113 of 2018.

51. As far as the case under Order 38 or under Order 39 is concerned, Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the Petition elaborately sets out how the money is siphoned away from Respondent No.3 by giving huge security deposits to Respondent No.5 and which (at least a part of it), were then routed to the promoters, namely, Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He submitted that looking to the transactions in question and which have been elaborated in the PWC report, there was a serious apprehension that monies of Respondent No.3 were being routed to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 through Respondent No.5. It was in these circumstances that the relief of deposit as well as the injunction was sought for. The Arbitral Tribunal examined all this material that was placed before it and thereafter came to a prima facie finding that the case for grant of interim reliefs was made out. He submitted that this order of the Arbitral Tribunal was one which is certainly a plausible view and this Court, under Section 37, ought not to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal unless it is found to be wholly perverse or palpably contrary to the provisions of law. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, no such case has been made out and therefore this Appeal holds no merit and ought to be dismissed.

52. Mr. Jagtiani also pointed out that the Claimants have already filed the evidence of five witnesses including a witness to prove the PWC report through a partner of PWC. Till date, despite the directions of the Tribunal, no evidence is filed by the Respondents. To put it in a nutshell, Mr. Jagtiani submitted that even till today the findings given in PWC report have not been refuted by the Respondents. This being the case, the Arbitral Tribunal could not be faulted for relying upon the same and thereafter granting the reliefs as was done in the impugned order. For all these reasons, Mr. Jagtiani submitted that there was no merit in the Petitions, and therefore, the same ought to be dismissed with costs.

53. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and have gone through the papers and proceedings in the Arbitration Petition as well as the impugned order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The first argument that was canvassed before me was in relation to the statement made by the Claimants restricting their claim to the sum of Rs.190 Crores at the interim stage and which has been recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 46 of the impugned order. According to Mr. Kamdar as well as Mr. Samdani, since the Claimants had, at the interim stage, restricted their claim to the sum of Rs.190 Crores, the Arbitral Tribunal had completely gone wrong in not only directing the Respondents to deposit the said amount or in the alternative give a bank guarantee, but thereafter also granted an injunction against the Respondents from disposing of any of their properties. It was the submission of the learned counsel that both the reliefs could not have been granted especially in view of the statement that was recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 46 of the impugned order. This being the case, the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal was highly excessive and was liable to be set aside, was the argument. To understand this argument, it would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 46 of the impugned order:

'46: Mr. Jagtiani, learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that although in the application there has been prayer for securing an amount of Rs. 591,01,18,200/-, he would be for the time being satisfied if the actual amount of invested money is protected pending the further proceedings. The actual amount of invested money is said to be Rs. 190 Crores.'

54. On going through the prayers in the Section 17 application and reading it with paragraph 46 (reproduced above), I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Kamdar and Mr. Samdani on this point. Prayer (a) of the Section 17 application seeks an order and direction against the Respondents to jointly and severally deposit an amount of Rs.591 Crores, being the amount equivalent to the fair value of the equity shares held by the Claimants in the Respondent No.3 company. Prayer (b), and which is an alternative prayer, seeks an order and direction against the Respondents to provide an unconditional bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 591 Crores. Thereafter, prayer clauses (c) to (g) seek an injunction against all the properties belonging to the Respondents. When one reads the statement recorded in paragraph 46 of the impugned order along with the prayers in the Section 17 application, it is quite clear that the statement made and recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 46 was in relation and restricted only to prayer clauses (a) and (b). In other words, the statement recorded on behalf of the Claimants is that for the time being the Claimants would be satisfied if the liquid security of the invested money (the sum of Rs.190 Crores) is protected pending the further proceedings. I am in agreement with Mr. Jagtiani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimants, that it is only with reference to prayer clauses (a) and (b), and which dealt with the liquid security, that the Claimants stated before the Arbitral Tribunal that they would be satisfied if the amount of Rs.190 Crores was furnished as security. This statement did not in any way give up the claim of the Claimants or dis-entitle them to the relief of injunction. One must not lose sight of the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal had already granted an ad-interim injunction against the Respondents from disposing of any of their properties by its order dated 24th April, 2018. That ad-interim injunction has also been continued by the Arbitral Tribunal in the impugned order. What is also pertinent to note is that this statement of the Claimants is recorded in paragraph 46 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the Tribunal in paragraph 47 proceeded to grant the interim reliefs and which is the operative part of the impugned order. In the operative part, the Tribunal not only directed the Respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.190 Crores, or in the alternative to provide a bank guarantee for the said amount, but also proceeded to grant an injunction restraining the Respondents from disposing of any of their properties and further directing them to provide a complete disclosure on affidavit of all the details of any of their immovable and / or movable properties. On reading the impugned order, I find that the Arbitral Tribunal also understood the statement made on behalf of the Claimants as one that was restricted to prayer clauses (a) and (b) and not with reference to the injunctive reliefs sought for by the Claimants. If in fact the statement made on behalf of the Claimants was with reference to all the prayers in the Section 17 application, the operative part of the impugned order and which can be found in the very next paragraph, would have read quite differently. I, therefore, find considerable force in the argument of Mr. Jagtiani that the statement made on behalf of the Claimants and as recorded in paragraph 46, was only restricted to prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Section 17 application and that is also how the Arbitral Tribunal understood it. This being the case, I do not think that Mr. Kamdar and Mr. Samdani are correct in their submission when they say that the Claimants at the interim stage, restricted their entire claim only to a sum of Rs. 190 Crores. This argument would therefore have to be rejected.

55. There is yet another reason for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Paragraph 46 clearly records that the learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that although in the application there is a prayer for securing an amount of Rs.591 Crores, the Claimants for the time being would be satisfied, if the actual amount of invested money is protected pending the further proceedings. Admittedly, only prayer clauses (a) and (b) deal with the question of providing security. This also clearly indicates that the statement recorded in paragraph 46 was with reference to prayer clauses (a) and (b) only which dealt with to secure the actual amount and not with reference to the prayers of injunction. Looking to all these facts, I am clearly of the view that the statement made on behalf of the Claimants in paragraph 46 of the impugned order was only restricted to prayer clauses (a) and (b) and did not in any way dis-entitle them to seek the relief of injunction in addition to securing the amount of Rs.190 Crores and which was sought as a liquid security. As stated earlier, it is quite clear that the Arbitral Tribunal also understood this statement in the same fashion, and therefore, directed the Respondents to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 190 Crores either by way of a deposit or by furnishing a bank guarantee and thereafter also proceeded to grant the relief of injunction as sought for by the Claimants. I, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the first argument canvassed by Mr. Kamdar and Mr. Samdani respectively.

56. The next submission made by Mr. Kamdar and Mr. Samdani was that the injunction granted by the Arbitral Tribunal was highly excessive and if allowed to continue to operate would hamper the entire business activity of the Respondents thereby bringing it to a virtual standstill. Both counsels submitted that heavy reliance placed by the Arbitral Tribunal on the PWC report was wholly misguided especially considering that this was at the highest a unilateral and a one-sided report. At best, it was the opinion of an expert yet to be proved, was the submission. It was further submitted that the values of all the properties of the Respondents were far in excess of the entire claim made in the Arbitration and hence, the Arbitral Tribunal was not justified in granting such a drastic order of injunction.

57. I am unable to agree with these submissions. Firstly, the Arbitral Tribunal has analyzed the entire record before it in great detail. From Paragraphs 39 to 41, the Arbitral Tribunal has examined the PWC report as well as the balance-sheets of Respondent No.5 for the financial years 2010 to 2017. It has noted that there are very serious allegations in the PWC report and which have been set out in great detail in the impugned order. Thereafter, in paragraph 44, the Tribunal categorically records that despite all these serious allegations, apart from a bare denial and characterization of the PWC report as bogus and one sided, there was no serious attempt made to meet these serious allegations. The Tribunal has categorically recorded that even during the submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents did not make any submissions with regard to the material allegations against them and the only attempt made was to contend that the claims and the applications were beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is nobody's case that this recording of the Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 44 of the impugned order, is an incorrect recording. On going through the impugned order, I find, and in fact the same was also conceded before me, that as far as the merits of the allegations made in the Section 17 application were not dealt with by the Respondents before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Respondents chose to rest their arguments on the basis that the Arbitral Tribunal had no jurisdiction and hence could not grant any interim relief. This was the path that the Respondents chose to take. This being the case, the Respondents today cannot complain, and that too at the appellate stage, that the reliefs granted by the Arbitral Tribunal and based on the PWC report as well as the balance-sheets of Respondent No.5, was not based on any proof or that the same was highly excessive. One must also not lose sight of the fact that the PWC report was prepared admittedly on the basis of the documents that were supplied by the Respondents to the Claimants and which were then forwarded to PWC for a forensic analysis. I, therefore, do not think that this report, at least prima facie, could be rejected by the Tribunal as being unilateral and one sided. The Respondents were given a fair opportunity to deal with the said report and make their submissions thereon. However, the Respondents chose not to respond to the same. This being the position, I do not think that the Arbitral Tribunal in any way misdirected itself in relying upon the same to grant the reliefs as sought for in the Section 17 application. I clearly find that the material placed on record shows that the Claimants had clearly made out a case under Order 38 as well as Order 39 of the CPC. The averments to that effect can also be found in paragraphs 142 to 173 and 180 to 185 of the Section 17 application. It now transpires that despite the injunction order granted by the Tribunal, the Respondents have disposed of some of their properties and in violation of the injunction order. This in fact has been recorded by this Court in its order dated 29th October, 2018 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1030 of 2018 in Commercial Execution Application No. 2113 of 2018. This order specifically records that the 5th Respondent, after the injunction order, had purported to transfer two properties to third parties for a consideration of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs and 7.10 Lakhs. This money was ordered to be brought back in this Court. Pursuant thereto, a Demand Draft of Rs. 14.60 Lakhs was brought into Court by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The said order of 29th October, 2018 further records that additional 10 properties were disposed of with no explanation provided. Looking even to the subsequent developments (i.e. after passing of the impugned order), it is now quite clear that despite the injunction order, the Respondents have purported to transfer and dispose of their properties. I, am therefore, clearly of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in granting the reliefs that it did. In these circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned order in an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

58. As far as the argument of the Respondents that the injunction was excessive in nature, I find this argument to be wholly ridiculous. Even at the stage when the Petition under Section 9 was filed, the Respondents were directed by this Court to disclose on oath all their properties including their value and status. Though this affidavit was filed, what was the status and value of the properties was never disclosed. This being the case, I do not think that the Tribunal was in any way unjustified in granting the injunction order against the Respondents restraining them from disposing of any of their properties. Without disclosing the value of their properties, I do not see how the Respondents can contend that the injunction granted is excessive. This is more so when one takes into consideration that the Tribunal has restrained the Defendants from disposing of any of their properties except in the ordinary course of business. This would clearly indicate that the injunction is not of a nature that would bring the entire business activities of the Respondents to a standstill, as was sought to be contended before me by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Respondents. This being the case, I find that the argument of the counsels for the Respondents that the injunction granted by the Tribunal was excessive in nature, to be wholly without any merit and has to be rejected.

59. The argument of Mr. Kamdar regarding the misjoinder of parties and causes of action does not detain me further. It was fairly conceded before me that no such argument was ever canvassed before the Arbitral Tribunal. This being the case, such an argument cannot be canvassed now before me to try and justify that the interim order passed by the Tribunal requires interference. It will always be open to the Respondents to canvass this argument before the Arbitral Tribunal at the appropriate stage, if so advised.

60. Even the argument made by Mr. Samdani that no direct relief was sought against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and hence no relief could be granted against them at the interim stage is without any merit. In the statement of claim, there is relief sought against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to repay the security deposits back to Respondent No.3 so as to ensure that Respondent No. 3 can satisfy the claim of the Claimants. It is to secure this, that relief has been granted in the interim application even against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. I, therefore, think that it is incorrect on the part of Mr. Samdani to contend that no interim relief could have been granted against the said Respondents. This argument also would therefore have to be rejected. This is more so when there were serious allegations made against all the Respondents for siphoning away monies from Respondent No.3 to Respondent No. 5 and which were then rerouted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and which has been duly set out in great detail in the impugned order. All these parties, and as recorded in the impugned order, are related parties. In fact the Chairman and Secretary of Respondent No.5 are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. These facts have not been disputed. Why the monies were

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

paid by Respondent No. 5 to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has not been explained at all even before me. Even now no attempt was made to explain or refute the findings that were given in the PWC report or the observations made by the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the monies paid by Respondent No.5 to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I must mention that the amounts were quite large in the sum of Rs.24 Crores approximately. I, therefore, find that Mr. Samdani is not correct in simply stating that because no direct relief was sought against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, no interim relief could have been granted against them. I must also mention that in the Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.5 to 7 before the Arbitral Tribunal, they have clearly stated that they do not intend to dispose of any of their properties. This being the case, I do not think that the Arbitral Tribunal was in any way wrong in granting the injunctive reliefs against Respondent Nos.5 to 7 also. 61. This now only leaves me to deal with the decisions that were relied upon by the Respondents. The first decision relied upon by Mr. Kamdar was a decision of this Court in the case of Wind World (India) Limited and Others (supra). The facts of this case would reveal that the Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 8th March, 2016 had directed the Petitioners to produce various documents and also granted various interim measures. The interim measures granted by the majority of the Arbitral Tribunal was against Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to do or not to do various acts in respect of preservation of partnership assets of various Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) and a Private Limited Company or preventing of any distribution of the assets etc of those LLPs and the Private Limited Company. It was an admitted fact that the LLPs or the Private Limited Company were not parties to the arbitral proceedings and it was thus argued that no interim measures could have been passed against those third parties. It is in these circumstances and in these facts that the observations of this Court have to be read. This Court held that the power of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 is a limited one and the interim measures must be related to the protection of the subject matter of the dispute and the order may be addressed only to the party to the arbitration. It is also in these circumstances that this Court took the view that the Arbitral Tribunal has no power to lift the corporate veil. I fail to see how this decision can be of any assistance to the Respondents. In the facts before me, the reliefs that have been granted are not against any third party but against the Respondents who are parties to the arbitration. They were duly heard and given an opportunity to make their submissions even on the merits of the case. This being the case, I find that this decision is of no assistance to the Respondents. 62. The next decision relied upon was a decision of this Court in the case of ONGC Ltd Vs. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd (supra). In this case, this Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal had no power to lift the corporate veil. The facts of this case also would reveal that relief was granted against a party who was not a party to the arbitral proceedings. In fact, in this decision, a Single Judge of this Court referred to the case of Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd (supra) and came to the conclusion that in the factual matrix before it, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd (supra), has no application at all. In contrast, in the facts of the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal, by relying upon Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd (supra), has come to a categorical finding that Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were necessary parties to the arbitration and overruled their objection that the Arbitral Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to them as they were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. This being the case, I find that the factual matrix in the case of ONGC Ltd Vs. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd (supra) was totally different from the factual situation in the present matter. This judgment therefore also is clearly distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to the Respondents. 63. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and Another (supra) is of no assistance to the Respondents. This decision of the Supreme Court has not been rendered with reference to the Arbitration Act but with reference to Labour Laws and the employer-employee relationship. I fail to see how this decision of the Supreme Court in any way assists the Respondents. In this decision, the Supreme Court has held that as a general principle of 'Corporate Law', a parent company is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary. The Doctrine of 'Piercing the Corporate Veil' stands as an exception to the principle that the Company is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its shareholders, with its own legal rights and obligations. This decision, in fact states under what circumstances the Corporate Veil can be pierced by the Court. This decision does not in any way seem to suggest that the Arbitral Tribunal, in a given factual situation, does not have the power to pierce the corporate veil, especially when that particular party is a party to the arbitration proceedings. This decision also, therefore, is of no assistance to the Respondents. 64. The last decision relied upon by Mr. Kamdar, was a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma (supra). This decision clearly lays down that no relief can be granted to a party that has come to court with unclean hands. Whilst there is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, I fail to see how this decision can be of any assistance to the Respondents. I do not find that in the facts of this case, the Claimants had approached the Arbitral Tribunal with unclean hands. There was nothing on the record of the Arbitral Tribunal to even suggest that the Claimants had approached the Tribunal with unclean hands. This argument was sought to be canvassed before me by placing reliance upon some documents which were tendered before me and which were never forming part of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal. In particular, reliance was placed on the Emails dated 8th August 2014 and 25th February 2015 to contend that the Claimants were fully in the know-of all things. Even on going through these Emails, I do not find that such is the case. These Emails do not in any way indicate that the Claimants were aware that monies were being siphoned away from Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 and which were then rerouted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2. I, therefore, find that the reliance placed on this decision also is of no assistance to the Respondents. 65. As far as the decisions relied upon by Mr. Samdhani are concerned, they all deal with the powers to be exercised by the Arbitral Tribunal while granting reliefs under section 17 of the Arbitration Act. These decisions hold that the Arbitral Tribunal is bound by the principles laid down under Order 38 or Order 39 of the CPC. Whilst there is no real quarrel with these propositions, in the factual situation before me, I have held earlier that these principles and tests have been duly considered by the Arbitral Tribunal before granting any relief to the Claimants. As mentioned earlier, there were serious allegations made against the Respondents of siphoning away monies from Respondent Nos.3 to Respondent No.5 and which were then rerouted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though ample opportunity was given to the Respondents to meet these allegations, they chose not to do so. They only chose to argue before the Arbitral Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction and hence no relief could be granted. This being the case, the Tribunal recorded in paragraph 44 that no attempt was made by the Respondents to refute the serious allegations made against them. Considering what was stated in forensic report of PWC and the Balance Sheets of Respondent No.5, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Claimants were entitled to the reliefs as sought for. This being the case, I find that the Tribunal correctly applied the tests laid down under Order 38 and Order 39 of the CPC before granting the reliefs that it did. This being the case, I find that the reliance placed by Mr. Samdhani on all the aforesaid decisions listed by me earlier can be of no assistance to the Respondents. 66. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in both the Petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R