Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) ... on 29 January, 2019
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decision Dated: 29th January, 2019
+ CS (OS) 46/2019, I.As. 1235/2019 & 1238/2019
UNION OF INDIA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Anuradha
R. V., Ms. Sumiti Yadava, Ms. Lalia
Philip, Mr. Prithvirat Chauhan and
Mr. Yuvraj, Advocates.
(M:9871881988)
versus
KHAITAN HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS)
LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Misha Rohatgi
Mohta, Advocate for R-1
(M:9899705974)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
I.As. 1235/2019 (u/Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2)
1. Arbitration as a means for resolution of disputes is well entrenched in
most judicial systems. In the context of commercial arbitration, there are two
types - domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration. In all
these disputes, minimum judicial interference in the conduct of arbitral
proceedings is the norm. There is yet another species of arbitration which is
the subject matter of the present case i.e., Arbitral proceedings under
Bilateral Investment Treaties. While traditional arbitrations arise out of
commercial contracts entered into between individuals and companies,
arbitrations under BITs arise out of agreements signed between two
sovereign nations. Under these agreements, each of the States, signatory to
the Agreement agrees to provide Fair and Equitable Treatment to investors
from the other State, as also extend protection against arbitrary,
discriminatory and unfair practices. The investments made by investors of
the State are to be safeguarded against any expropriation and remedies are
also provided for adjudication of disputes through international dispute
settlement mechanisms. The dispute settlement mechanisms can be triggered
both by the aggrieved State as also an aggrieved investor from a State which
is party to the Agreement, against the other State. Interference by domestic
courts in arbitral proceedings that may be commenced under BITs is
permissible but only in `compelling circumstances‟, in `rare cases‟. Courts
are hesitant to interfere in the arbitral process once the Tribunal is
constituted and is seized of the dispute.
2. The Union of India seeks an anti-arbitration injunction against the
arbitral proceedings initiated by Defendant No.1 - M/s Khaitan Holdings
(Mauritius) Ltd. (hereinafter, „Defendant no.1‟/Khaitan Holdings), a
Mauritius based company, under the Agreement entered into between the
Republic of India and the Republic of Mauritius for the Promotion and
Protection of Investments (hereinafter „BIT agreement‟). The suit was
initially listed on 25th January 2019 on which date summons and notices
were issued. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Plaintiff that all
Defendants have been served by email. Defendant No.1 has appeared before
the Court yesterday under protest. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not before the
Court. The Ld. ASG presses for urgent interim relief in view of the hearing
fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the BIT, which is fixed for
28th January 2019. Submissions were heard on the grant of ad-interim relief,
as pleadings are yet to be completed in the application. However,
considering the nature of submissions addressed and the voluminous
documents/material placed before the Court, that required consideration,
Defendant no.1 was directed to seek postponement of the hearing in its
application before the Arbitral Tribunal on 28 th January 2019, until
pronouncement of orders today.
3. Plaintiff in the present suit is the Union of India / Republic of India
(hereinafter „Republic of India‟) which has entered into an agreement with
the Government of Republic of Mauritius for the Promotion and Protection
of Investments (hereinafter „BIT agreement‟), which was executed in 1998
with effect from 20th June, 2000. Khaitan Holdings is a company based in
Mauritius. Its predecessors in interest are Kaif Investment Limited
(hereinafter „Kaif Investment‟) and Capital Global Limited (hereinafter
„CGL‟). Defendant No.2 - Loop Telecom and Trading Limited is an Indian
company earlier known as Loop Telecom Limited (hereinafter „Loop
Telecom‟). Defendant No.3 - Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan (hereinafter,
„Ishwari Prasad Khaitan‟) and Defendant No.4 - Smt. Kiran Khaitan
(hereinafter, „Kiran Khaitan‟) are Indian citizens, who are alleged to be the
beneficial shareholders of Khaitan Holdings. Defendant No.5 - Shri
Ravikant Ruia (hereinafter, „Ravikant Ruia‟) is a promoter of the ESSAR
Group of Companies, including Hutchison ESSAR Limited.
4. The present suit has been filed by Union of India seeking the
following reliefs: -
"(1) Pass and pronounce a Decree of
Declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants, who are liable
jointly and severally, to the effect that the
Defendant No. 1 is disentitled to take
recourse to the Arbitration under the
Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of India and the Government of
the Republic of Mauritius for the Promotion
and Protection of Investments, and that all
steps taken or caused to be taken by the
Defendants are non-est and beyond the
intent and scope of the said Agreement.
(2) Pass and pronounce a Decree of
Declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants, who are liable
jointly and severally, to the effect that the
Defendant No. 3 has abused the process of
law by using his beneficial ownership and
control over the Defendant No. 1, to cause
the Defendant No. 1 to take recourse to the
Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of India and the Government of
the Republic of Mauritius for the Promotion
and Protection of Investments, and taking
further steps in pursuance thereof.
(3) Pass and pronounce a Decree of Permanent
Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants, who are liable
jointly and severally, restraining them, their
agents, attorneys, legal representatives,
assigns, directors, principal officers,
successors, subsidiaries, affiliates and/ or
any other person purporting to act for and
on their behalf, from continuing any further
with the Arbitration proceedings titled
Khaitan Holdings Limited (Mauritius) v.
Republic of India (PCA Case No 2018-50),
under the Agreement between the
Government of the Republic of India and
the Government of the Republic of
Mauritius for the Promotion and Protection
of Investments and / or taking any further
steps in relation to the same.
(4) Pass any such other and further orders as
deemed fit, in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants, including that of the
costs."
5. The background of the dispute is that Loop Telecom, an Indian
company had applied for 21 Unified Access Services (hereinafter, "UAS")
Licences with the Department of Telecommunications, Government of
India. Letters of Intent were issued to Loop Telecom on 25th January, 2008.
Various allegations were raised against the then Government in the award of
licences and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other
investigative agencies were directed to investigate into the said award of
licences. The Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v.
Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1 (hereinafter, „CPIL‟) on 2nd February, 2012,
inter alia, cancelled all 21 UAS licenses granted to Loop Telecom.
6. Loop Telecom chose not to participate in the subsequent bidding
process and sought refund of the license fee paid by it from the Republic of
India. It, thereafter, approached the TDSAT seeking refund of the License
Fee. The said petition was dismissed by the TDSAT on 16th September,
2015. A Special Leave Petition against the said order was withdrawn on 13th
May, 2016 with liberty.
7. The shareholding of Loop Telecom underwent changes from time to
time. Kaif Investment, which held a substantial interest in Loop Telecom
merged with Khaitan Holdings. Upon the cancellation of licences by the
Supreme Court, CGL & Kaif Investment issued notice dated 16th April 2012
under Article 8.1 of the BIT agreement, seeking settlement of disputes under
Article 8.1 of the BIT Agreement. Kaif Investment then merged with
Khaitan Holdings. On 30th September, 2013, notice of arbitration under
Article 8.2 of the BIT Agreement was issued by Khaitan Holdings on the
ground that it held 26.95% in Loop Telecom and being a company based in
Mauritius, it is entitled to claim compensation. In the said notice, Khaitan
Holdings sought the following monetary and other claims: -
"D. The Relief or Remedy Sought
27. KHML seeks restitution in full against the
harm it has suffered as a consequence of the
UoI‟s violation of the Treaty.
28. Such restitution may include:
(a) The return of the (approximately)
US$140,000,000 invested by KHML in
Loop to date (and compensation for the
loss of use of the same), along with
interest calculated at 12% p.a, from the
date of receipt of the investment till date
of realization;
(b) KHML's share of the lost shareholder
revenue (estimated in excess of US$1
billion) which would have been
generated over time by Loop's
successful operation of the licences
and/or;
(c) Loss of the market values of the
licences, recently demonstrated by the
UoI's re-auction of the relevant
spectrum at a substantially increased
value, which is in excess of US$ 300
million.
(d) Such other losses and harm as KHML
identifies in its Statement of
Claim/Memorial."
8. However, since no positive response was received, disputes arose
between the parties and both parties nominated their respective arbitrators in
2013. In the meantime on 21st December, 2017, the CBI - Special Judge
acquitted Loop Telecom, Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan, Smt. Kiran Khaitan
and Shri Ravikant Ruia of all the charges. It is submitted that the UOI has
sought leave to appeal against the judgment which is pending consideration.
9. Subsequent to the judgment of the CBI - Special Judge being
delivered, Khaitan Holdings sought appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator
by the Permanent Court of Arbitration - the appointing authority under the
UNCITRAL Rules. On 29th May, 2018, the Presiding Arbitrator was
appointed. In the meantime, Loop Telecom again approached the TDSAT
seeking refund of licence fee paid, post the acquittal by the CBI Judge. The
said petition was dismissed on 16th September, 2018. On 6th December,
2018, the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the first date of hearing in the
arbitration as 28th January, 2019. This was termed as the „in person First
Procedural Meeting‟. The Court is informed that the Claim petition is yet to
be filed in the arbitration and is due in July 2019. The hearing date in the
arbitration has been tentatively scheduled for 14-18th December 2020.
10. The UOI, on 7th December, 2018, called upon Defendant Nos.1 to 4 to
desist from proceeding with the arbitration and exercise control over
Khaitan Holdings, on the ground that Khaitan Holdings is not a genuine and
bonafide investor and is controlled by Shri. Ishwari Prasad Khaitan and Smt.
Kiran Khaitan - both of whom are Indian citizens.
11. In response thereto, Shri. Ishwari Prasad Khaitan - Defendant No.3
and Defendant No.4 - Smt. Kiran Khaitan replied taking the stand that the
letters ought to be addressed to the respective parties namely; Loop Telecom
and Khaitan Holdings. Vide letter dated 17th January, 2019, Khaitan
Holdings, brought the said letters dated 7th December, 2018 to the
knowledge of the Arbitral Tribunal. On 24th January, 2019, the Government
of India addressed a communication informing the Arbitral Tribunal that it
would be approaching the Delhi High Court in view of various facts that
have come to its knowledge being: -
(a) Khaitan Holdings though incorporated in Mauritius is not a
Mauritius investor, but, in fact, the beneficial owner of the said
company is based out of India;
(b) In view of this, Khaitan Holdings or its predecessors could not
have initiated a valid dispute under the BIT Agreement;
(c) That the arbitral proceedings were an abuse of process;
(d) That the investments were not in accordance with the laws of
India.
12. On the same day, the solicitors of Khaitan Holdings sought a pro-tem
injunction from the Arbitral Tribunal, against the Republic of India in the
following terms: -
"The Claimant will make a formal application for
relief from the Tribunal, in the form of an order
preventing the Respondent from making or pursuing
any such application in the Indian Courts. The
Claimant asks that a briefing schedule for the
Claimant‟s application be established at Monday‟s
hearing.
In the interim, the Claimant respectfully requests that
the Tribunal immediately issue a pro tem injunction to
protect its own jurisdiction, restraining the
Government of India from taking any action in the
Indian Courts to restrain or prevent this arbitration,
until such time as the Claimant‟s application can be
properly argued and adjudicated by the Tribunal."
13. The present suit came to be filed on 25th January, 2019 and was listed
on urgent mentioning before this Court. Notice was issued to the Defendants
and the matter was called today. Before commencement of the hearing,
learned ASG, Mr. Sanjay Jain, placed on record emails dated 25 th January,
2019 by which the Arbitral Tribunal was notified of the order passed by this
Court on 25th January, 2019. In response thereto, the secretariat under
instructions from the presiding Arbitrator directed as under:
"Dear Mesdames,
Dear Sirs,
I write under the instructions of the presiding arbitrator
in the above referenced matter.
The Parties are informed that, if either Party has any
application that it wishes to make to the Tribunal at its
First Session in relation to the judicial proceedings in
Delhi, it shall formulate it as a written application
notified to the Tribunal and the other Party by 14.00
hours CET on Sunday 27 January 2019. In such event,
the Tribunal will hear counsel for both Parties on such
application under item 4 of the Agenda.
Kind regards,
Helen Brown
Legal Counsel
PCA"
14. Khaitan Holdings, thereafter, moved an application on 27 th January,
2019 seeking interim reliefs from the Tribunal in the following manner:
"Relief sought:
For the reasons set out in the Application, the Claimant
respectfully requests the Tribunal to order:
(a) the Respondent to withdraw the proceedings
commenced in the Delhi High Court under case
name Union of India v. Khaitan Holdings
(Mauritius) Limited and Others, ad case no CS (OS)
46/2019.
(b) the Respondent to refrain from making, or pursuing,
any application or action to any court other than the
court of the seat for relief where the aim or result of
which is to prevent the Claimant from pursuing this
arbitration;
(c) the Respondent to refrain from making, or pursuing,
any application or action to any court other than the
court of the seat for relief the aim or result of which
is to hinder, directly or indirectly, any individual or
entity from taking actions in connection with, or
otherwise progressing, this arbitration;
(d) the Respondent to procure that no ministry,
department, agency, instrumentality or other entity
under the control of the UOI take any action
contrary to sub-paragraphs (b) or (c) above;
(e) the Respondent to refrain from taking any action, or
causing any action to be taken, which could lead to
further inquiry, aggravation or extension of the
dispute between the Parties;
(f) the Respondent to pay the Claimant‟s costs of this
application and of defending the proceedings in the
Delhi High Court (case number CS(OS) 46/2019);
and such further of alternative relief as the Tribunal
may deem appropriate."
15. In this background, the UOI seeks ad-interim relief restraining the
arbitral proceedings. On behalf of both parties i.e. the Plaintiff and Khaitan
Holdings, detailed submissions have been addressed. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Ld.
ASG has made his submissions on the following aspects:-
(a) That Khaitan Holdings could not have invoked arbitration as
the disputes are outside the scope of the BIT agreement under
Article 2;
(b) That Loop Telecom being an Indian company in whom
investment is alleged to have been made by Khaitan Holdings
(Mauritius) Limited, was subject to the laws of India and had
accepted the jurisdiction of TDSAT.
(c) That the actual investor and beneficiary of Khaitan Holdings
being an Indian citizen i.e. Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan he
could not take advantage of the BIT agreement as the same is
meant for adjudication of disputes between a genuine Mauritius
investor and Republic of India and not an Indian citizen and the
Republic of India;
(d) The application moved by Khaitan Holdings seeking interim
relief before the Arbitral Tribunal, in effect, seeks an order
from the Arbitral Tribunal directing the Republic of India to
withdraw proceedings from the Delhi High Court;
(e) That the master circular dated 29th July, 2007 issued at the time
when Loop Telecom applied for its licences permitted 49% FDI
under the automatic route which made it mandatory that the
investment would be subject to Indian laws. Since Loop
Telecom had approached a specialised Tribunal namely
TDSAT to adjudicate the disputes, arbitration under BIT could
not be invoked. Reliance is placed by the Plaintiff on the
judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Vodafone Group
[CS(OS) 383/2017 decision dated 7th May, 2018] (hereinafter,
„Vodafone Judgment‟).
(f) That the certificate of incumbency issued by the Mauritian
authorities showed that the immediate shareholder of Kaif
Investment Limited was Defendant No.1, Khaitan Holdings
(Mauritius) Limited. The beneficial owner of this company was
Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan, Defendant No.3. All the group
companies showed Defendant No.3 and 4 as the ultimate
beneficial owners.
16. On the other hand, on behalf of Khaitan Holdings, Mr. Dayan
Krishnan, learned senior counsel has submitted as under: -
(a) That Defendant no.1 appears under protest and is not
submitting to the jurisdiction of this Court;
(b) That the UOI has approached this Court with considerable
delay. That the UOI has acquiesced to the constitution of the
Arbitral Tribunal and has participated in the arbitral
proceedings without demur or protest.
(c) Except in the rarest of rare cases an anti-arbitration injunction
cannot be granted injuncting an arbitration under a BIT
Agreement.
(d) The question as to whether Khaitan Holdings is an `investor‟
under the BIT Agreement is to be interpreted, by the Arbitral
Tribunal and not by this Court.
(e) Claims relating to expropriation were not before the TDSAT
and hence the fact that Loop Telecom had availed its remedies
does not bar the arbitral proceedings under the BIT Agreement.
(f) The acquittal by the CBI Court shows that there was no
criminality in the allotment of licenses.
(g) On a specific query from the Court, it is admitted that Shri
Ishwari Prasad Khaitan had shareholding in Khaitan Holdings,
till one and a half years ago.
Analysis and Findings
17. The genesis of the dispute, which has been encapsulated in the notice
invoking arbitration is the judgement of the Supreme Court in CPIL (supra)
of the Supreme Court by which the Supreme Court cancelled the licences
granted to various companies including Loop Telecom. The judgment of the
Supreme Court resulted in fresh recommendations being made by the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, and thereafter an auction being
conducted for allocation of the spectrum and award of licenses.
18. It can be seen that in the era of BIT agreements, even judgements of
Courts could trigger investment disputes under the BITs resulting in
enormous claims being raised against the Government. This is so because
under public international law which primarily governs BIT agreements, the
Articles of State Responsibility specifically provide that the conduct of any
organ of the State can be called to question. Article 4 of the Responsibility
of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001 reads as under:
"Article 4: Conduct of Organs of a State
1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered
an act of that State under international law,
whether the organ exercises legislative, executive,
judicial or any other functions, whatever position it
holds in the organisation of the State, and whatever
its character as an organ of the central
Government or of a territorial unit of that State.
2. An organ includes any person or entity which has
that status in accordance with the internal law of
the State."
19. The issue arises as to whether in the Indian context, where the
judiciary is independent of the other organs of the State, its conduct can be
called to question in an arbitral proceeding and the Government of India can
be made liable for a judgement passed by the Court. Theoretically speaking,
the answer is in the affirmative, though it depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the present case, though, at first blush, the
judgment of the Supreme Court appears to be the trigger for invocation of
arbitration under the BIT Agreement, a closer examination reveals that this
may not be so. The findings of the Supreme Court in CPIL (supra) were that
the policy of first-come-first-served by the then Government was completely
flawed and had inherently dangerous implications. The Supreme Court also
held that the procedure adopted by the Government was not transparent and
fair. It held that the actions of the Government were arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, the Supreme Court‟s judgement called to question the executive action
of the Government in arbitrary allocations of license and thereafter cancelled
the same.
20. The question as to whether Defendant no.1, an investor in Loop
Telecom has a cause of action to invoke arbitration under the BIT and
whether the cancellation constitutes expropriation is not for this Court
decide. The adjudication of this issue is in the domain of the arbitral tribunal
seized of the dispute.
UASL regime
21. The Unified Access Service Licences were cancelled by the Supreme
Court in CPIL (supra). A perusal of the UAS License Agreement executed
between the Department of Telecommunications and Loop Telecom shows
that the said licence is subject to Indian laws. The relevant portions are
extracted herein below:
"1. Ownership of the LICENSEE Company.
1.1 The LICENSEE shall ensure that the total
foreign equity in the paid up capital of the LICENSEE
Company does not, at any time during the entire
Licence period, exceed 74% of the total equity subject
to the following FDI norms:
(i) Both direct and indirect foreign investment in the
licensee company shall be counted for the purpose of
FDI ceiling. Foreign Investment shall include
investment by Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs),
Non-resident Indians (NRIs), Foreign Currency
Convertible Bonds (FCCBs), American Depository
Receipts (ADRs), Global Depository Receipts (GDRs)
and convertible preference shares held by foreign
entity. Indirect foreign Investment shall mean
foreign investment in the company/companies holding
shares of the licensee company and their holding
company/companies or legal entity (such as mutual
funds, trusts) on proportionate basis. Shares of the
licensee company held by Indian public sector banks
and Indian public sector financial institutions will be
treated as „Indian holding‟. In any case, the „Indian‟
shareholding will not be less than 26 percent.
(ii) FDI up to 49 percent will continue to be on the
automatic route. FDI in the licensee company/Indian
promoters/investment companies including their
holding companies shall require approval of the
Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) if it has
a bearing on the overall ceiling of 74 percent. While
approving the investment proposals, FIPB shall take
note that investment is not coming from countries of
concern and/or unfriendly entities.
(iii) FDI shall be subject to laws of India and not
the laws of the foreign country/countries.
16.1 The LICENSEE shall be bound by the terms
and conditions of this Licence Agreement as well as
by such orders/directions/regulations of TRAI as per
provisions of the TRAI Act, 1997 as amended from
time to time and instructions as are issued by the
Licensor/TRAI.
16.2 All disputes relating to this Licence will be
subject to jurisdiction of Telecom Disputes Settlement
and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) as per provisions of
TRAI Act, 1997 including any amendment or
modification thereof."
22. The definition of licensee in this agreement includes the "licensee, its
successors in businesses, administrators, liquidators and assignees or legal
representatives". The investment by Khaitan Holdings and/or its
predecessors was under the automatic route as per clause 1.1 of the General
conditions. The said investment was subject to the laws of India. All
disputes relating to this licence were to be subject to the jurisdiction of the
TDSAT. The question that arises is as to whether Loop Telecom having
invoked the jurisdiction of TDSAT, would bar the remedies of the investor
in Loop Telecom from invoking arbitration under the BIT Agreement.
Bilateral Investment Treaty - Analysis
23. The remedy under a BIT Agreement is a remedy which is provided to
investors from foreign countries. Presuming an investor to be a genuine
investor, if the investor‟s investment in India has been prejudiced, the
investor can invoke remedies available under the BIT. The availability of
such remedies promotes the investor friendly ecosystem of any country.
Under the BIT the State holds out an assurance to protect the investments of
investors from the Contracting State. An assurance given under any BIT
signed by the Republic of India constitutes a solemn promise by the country
for being a destination for safe foreign investment. The BIT provides for
obligations and remedies which are not dependent on any other statutes or
laws. The BIT is self-contained and is primarily governed by principles of
public international law. It would not be wrong to say that BITs are sui
generis in nature and do not depend on the applicability, interpretation and
adjudication under domestic laws. Interference with the BIT dispute
resolution mechanism in the case of a genuine investor dispute could lead to
erosion of investor confidence and also dislodge the fundamental precincts
on which BITs are based.
24. The question is whether the investment by Defendant no.1 in Loop
Telecom is genuine and bonafide foreign investment and whether the BIT
arbitral process ought to be interfered with.
25. The BIT mechanism was triggered on 16th April, 2012 when the first
notice was issued by CGL and Kaif Investment requesting resolution of the
disputes. The said notice was under Article 8.1 of the BIT. Thereafter, Kaif
Investment was merged with Khaitan Holdings. On 30th September, 2013,
notice of arbitration under Article 8.2 was issued. In this notice, Khaitan
Holdings sought restitution of its investment in Loop Telecom and the sums
expended by Loop Telecom in purchasing the cancelled licenses. The
proposal for settlement/conciliation sought payment of US$ 166.89 million
towards loss of direct investment of Rs.2457.53 crores towards lost telecom
license fee paid by Loop Telecom as also withdrawal of penalties, notices
for liquidated damages, which were issued by the Government of India. A
perusal of this notice shows that while Khaitan Holdings sought restitution
of its direct investment, it also, in addition sought various amounts which
had already been sought by Loop Telcom before the TDSAT. Thus, to an
extent the claims were overlapping. In the final notice of arbitration which
was issued, however, the amounts were merged and the remedies sought
were as under:
"D. The Relief or Remedy Sought
27. KHML seeks restitution in full against the
harm it has suffered as a consequence of the
UoI‟s violation of the Treaty.
28. Such restitution may include:
(a) The return of the (approximately)
US$140,000,000 invested by KHML in
Loop to date (and compensation for the
loss of use of the same), along with
interest calculated at 12% p.a, from the
date of receipt of the investment till date
of realization;
(b) KHML's share of the lost shareholder
revenue (estimated in excess of US$1
billion) which would have been
generated over time by Loop's
successful operation of the licences
and/or;
(c) Loss of the market values of the
licences, recently demonstrated by the
UoI's re-auction of the relevant
spectrum at a substantially increased
value, which is in excess of US$ 300
million.
(d) Such other losses and harm as KHML
identifies in its Statement of
Claim/Memorial."
26. Pursuant to this notice issued by Khaitan Holdings, Arbitrators were
nominated by both parties. However, until 6th April, 2018, Khaitan Holdings
did not activate the arbitral proceedings. The judgment of the Special CBI
Court was delivered on 21st December, 2017. It was only thereafter that
Khaitan Holdings sought appointment of the presiding Arbitrator. The
presiding Arbitrator was appointed in May, 2018. The first date of hearing
was fixed as 28th January, 2019.
27. On 7th December, 2018, on the basis of the documentary evidence
which the Plaintiff claims to have got hold of during the criminal
proceedings, it called upon Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 to impress upon
Khaitan Holdings not to pursue the arbitration under the BIT Agreement.
This communication was based on the premise that Khaitan Holdings was
wholly controlled by Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4. However, the said
Defendants did not accede to the request of the Republic of India which led
to issuance of communications to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Republic of
India and thereafter, filing of the present suit. Though going simply by the
notice invoking arbitration, sufficient time appears to have elapsed, the
arbitration itself, has been activated only a few months ago. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be held that the Republic of India has acquiesced to
the BIT arbitration.
28. The questions raised by the UOI in the present suit, especially the
connection between Defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are not such as those that
can be termed as either being malafide or an abuse of process. The Republic
of India is well within its rights to invoke the jurisdiction of domestic
Courts, especially when the cause of action has a real nexus to the territory
of India.
29. In Vodafone Judgment (supra), a Learned Single Judge of this Court
has clearly observed that arbitration proceedings under BITs are not
governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as they are not
commercial arbitrations. Thus, the jurisdiction of this Court would be
determined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The observations of
the Court in the Vodafone Judgment (supra) are as under:
"66. Section 20 CPC is the residuary clause which
deals with the 'place of suing'. The said Section
reads as under:-
"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants
reside or cause of action arises.-- Subject to the
limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted
in a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction--
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where
there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily
resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more
than one, at the time of the commencement of the
suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain, provided
that in such case either the leave of the Court is
given, or the defendants who do not reside, or
carry on business, or personally work for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
(emphasis supplied)
72.... In fact, from the aforesaid statements,
this Court is of the view that the cause of action
for the present suit partly arose within the
jurisdiction of this Court and Defendants had
purposefully availed of Indian jurisdiction, inter
alia, by making an investment in India, holding
economic interests in India and carrying on
business in India and from a reasonable and
holistic perspective, Defendants have to be
considered as working for gain within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
...
75. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction
over the Defendants in personam and over the
subject matter of the dispute
..."
30. Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan and Smt. Kiran Khaitan, who are the
prima facie owners of Khaitan Holdings, are also residents of Delhi. Loop
Telecom is a company incorporated in Delhi. As per the arbitration notice, it
is disputes arising out of investments made in Loop Telecom that are the
subject matter of the arbitration. Any prayer for injunction can therefore in
law be adjudicated by this Court. Thus, the Plaint iff is not estopped
from the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court either by acquiescence or by
virtue of lack of jurisdiction.
Shareholding pattern in Loop Telecom and Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius)
Ltd
31. The investor in Loop Telecom, an Indian company was Capital
Global Limited in 2008. In March, 2009, Capital Global Limited transferred
its investment to Kaif Investment, another Mauritian entity. Kaif Investment
invested 92 million USD, between March, 2009 to March, 2012. With effect
from 31st March, 2012, Kaif Investment merged with Khaitan Holdings.
The beneficial owners of all these companies are Shri Ishwari Prasad
Khaitan and Smt Kiran Khaitan - both of whom are admittedly Indian
citizens. This is clear from a perusal of the certificate of incumbency issued
by the Mauritian authorities, which shows that the immediate shareholder of
Kaif Investment is Khaitan Holdings. The group companies listed in the
certificate are as under:
"7. Details of Group companies:
Company Country of Immediate Ultimate
Name Incorporation Shareholder Beneficial
owner
Capital Global Mauritius Loop Mobile Mrs. Kiran
Ltd. Holdings India Khaitan
Limited (89.11%). Mr.
Ishwari
Prasad
Khaitan
(10.89%)
Khaitan Mauritius Mr. Ishwari Mr. Ishwari
Holdings Prasad Khaitan Prasad
(Mauritius) Khaitan
Limited
Palab Mauritius Khaitan Mr. Ishwari
Investment Holdings Prasad
Limited (Mauritius) Khaitan
Limited
Black Lion Mauritius Palab Mr. Ishwari
Limited Investment Prasad
Limited Khaitan
Deccan Asian Mauritius Palab Mr. Ishwari
Infrastruture Investment Prasad
(Mauritius), Inc Limited Khaitan
Aidtel Holdings Mauritius Palab Mr. Ishwari
(Mauritius), Inc Investment Prasad
Limited Khaitan
Inditel Holdings Mauritius Palab Mr. Ishwari
Investment Prasad
Limited Khaitan
32. The beneficial owner of Kaif Investment was shown as under:
"(b) Beneficial Owner : Ishwari Prasad Khaitan
P. O. Box 24369
Flat 313 (E&W. SI)
B Meter, 630 /
Silicon Oasis,
Dubai, UAE."
33. On a query put to learned counsel for Khaitan Holdings, it is
confirmed that until one and a half years ago Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan
continued to hold shareholding in Khaitan Holdings. Reply by Defendant
No.1 is yet to be filed to confirm its shareholding pattern. The submission of
the Ld. ASG is that the beneficial owners of Kaif Investment, Khaitan
Holdings and Capital Global, being Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan and Smt.
Kiran Khaitan, being Indian citizens, the present dispute cannot be termed as
a case of a foreign investor invoking the BIT Agreement between India and
Mauritius, which is meant to protect foreign investors.
34. Admittedly, 26.95% in Loop Telecom was held by Khaitan Holdings
as on date of invoking the arbitration. The remaining shareholding is held by
domestic Indian investors. Thus, if Khaitan Holdings is also for the
beneficial interest of Indian citizens, Loop Telecom would be nothing but a
pure Indian entity. The facts relating to the shareholding of Shri Ishwari
Prasad Khaitan and Smt Kiran Khaitan in Loop Telecom, as per the learned
ASG, were revealed only in the criminal proceedings, which were
commenced pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The other
allegation is that Defendant Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Shri Ishwari Prasad Khaitan and
Smt Kiran Khaitan were fronts for Defendant No.5 - Shri Ruia. As per the
judgment of the CBI Court, this fact is not established by the prosecution.
35. Under Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Rules, the Arbitral
Tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, including on the existence of the
arbitration agreement. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not
have application in the present case as the same relates to commercial
arbitrations.
36. The present case is one emanating from a Bilateral Investment Treaty
and not from a simple commercial contract. The Treaty has been executed
between two sovereign nations. The object of the treaty is as under:
"Desiring to create favourable conditions for
greater flow of investments made by investors of
either Contracting Party in the territory of the
other Contracting Party; and
Recognising that the Promotion and Protection
of such investment will lend greater stimulation
to the development of business initiatives and
will increase prosperity in the territories of both
Contracting Parties:"
37. The scope of the agreement under Article 2 reads as under:
"Article 2
Scope of the Agreement
This Agreement shall apply to all investments
made by investors of either Contracting Party
in the territory of the other Contracting Party,
accepted as such in accordance with its laws
and regulations, whether made before or after
the coming into force of this Agreement."
38. Thus, the investment made by a Mauritian investor has to be in
accordance with the laws and regulations in India for it to fall within the BIT
Agreement. The treaty requires, under Article 4, that the investors of the two
countries shall be accorded "fair and equitable treatment in each other‟s
territories". It also requires that there shall be no impairment by
unreasonable and discriminatory measures and the terms of investment shall
not be less favourable, than those afforded to the citizens of India. Thus, fair
and equitable treatment is to be accorded to a Mauritius investor.
39. Article 5 and Article 6 relating to compensation for losses and
expropriation read as under.
"ARTICLE 5
Compensation for Losses
(1) Investors of either Contracting Party whose
investments in the territory of the other
Contracting Party suffer losses owing to war or
other armed conflict, revolution, a state of
national emergency, revolt, insurrection or riot
in the territory of the latter Contracting Party
shall be afforded by the latter Contracting Party
treatment, as regards restitution,
indemnification, compensation or other
settlement, not less favourable than that which
the latter Contracting Party accords to its own
investors or to investors of any third State.
(2) subject to paragraph (1) of this Article,
investors of either Contracting Party who, in
any of the situation referred to in that
paragraph, suffer losses in the territory of the
other Contracting Party resulting from:
(a) requisitioning of their property by the force
or authorities of the latter Contracting Party,
acting under and within the scope of the legal
provisions relating to their competences, duties
and command structures: or
(b) destruction of their property by the forces or
authorities of the latter Contracting Party,
which was not caused in combat action or was
not required by the necessity of the situation or
observance of any legal requirement;
shall be afforded treatment as regards
restitution or adequate compensation, not less
favourable than that which the latter
Contracting Party accords to its own investors
or to investors of any third state.
ARTICLE 6
Expropriation
(1) Investments of investors of either
Contracting Party in the territory of the other
Contracting Party shall not be nationalised,
expropriated or subjected to measures having
effects equivalent to nationalisation or
expropriation except for public purposes under
due process of law, on a non-discriminatory
basis and against fair and equitable
condensation. Such condensation shall amount
to the market value of the investment
expropriated immediately before the
expropriation or before the impending
expropriation became public knowledge,
whichever is the earlier, shall include interest at
a fair and equitable rate until the date of
payment, shall be made without unreasonable
delay and shall be effectively realizable and be
freely transferable,
(2) The investor affected by the expropriation
shall have right, under the law of the
Contracting Party making the expropriation, to
review, by a judicial or other independent
authority of that Party, of his or its case and of
the valuation of his or its investment in
accordance with the principles set out in this
paragraph.
(3) Where a Contracting Party expropriates,
nationalises or takes measures having effect
equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation
against the assets of a company which is
incorporated or constituted under the laws in
force in any part of its own territory, and in
which investors of the other Contracting Party
own shares, it shall ensure that the provisions of
paragraph (1) of this Article are applied to the
extent necessary to ensure fair and equitable
compensation as specified therein to such
investors of the other Contracting Party who are
owners of those shares."
40. A perusal of the above shows that losses caused due to war, armed
conflict, revolution, national emergency, revolt, riots etc. would be liable to
be restituted and indemnified. Requisition of property by forces or
authorities or destruction of property would also be liable to be
compensated. The investments cannot be nationalized or expropriated or
subjected to measures equivalent to expropriation. The exception to
expropriation, however, is "public purposes following due process of law".
Thus, if any investment is expropriated for a public purpose after following
due process of law, no compensation would be payable.
41. The cancellation of licences by the Supreme Court in the decision
dated 2nd February, 2012 in CPIL (supra), was a judgment pronounced by
the Supreme Court in public interest. The same was rendered after hearing
all the parties concerned including Loop Telecom, which was the investment
vehicle of Khaitan Holdings. Loop Telecom has availed of its judicial
remedies under the Indian law by approaching the TDSAT. Under the
judgment of the Supreme Court, Loop Telecom also had an option of
participating in the auction directed as per the recommendations of the
TRAI. However, it chose not to do so. Thus, the same could be argued as
being an exception to Article 6 of the BIT. However, the investor i.e., the
Mauritian entities have not availed of any judicial remedies under Indian law
and have chosen to invoke the BIT. Insofar as the settlement of disputes
under the BIT Agreement is concerned, the same is governed under Article
8, which reads as under:
"ARTICLE 8
Settlement of Disputes Between an Investor and
a Contracting Party
(1) Any dispute between an Investor of one
Contracting Party and the other Contracting
Party in relation to an investment of the former
under this Agreement shall, as far as possible,
be settled amicably through negotiations
between the parties to the dispute.
(2) If such dispute cannot be settled according to
the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article
within six months from the date of request for
settlement, the investor may submit the dispute
to:
(a) arbitration in accordance to the law of the
Contracting Party; or
(b) if the Contracting Party of the investor and
the other Contracting Party are both parties
to the Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes between States and
Nationals of other states, of March 18, 1965
and the investor consents in writing to
submit the dispute to the International
centre for the settlement of Investment
Disputes, such a dispute shall be referred to
the centre; or
(c) to international conciliation under the
Conciliation Rules of the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law; or
(d) to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal set up in
accordance with the Arbitration Rules of
the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law, 1976, subject to
the following modifications:
(i) The appointing authority under Article 7
of the Arbitration Rules shall be the
President, the Vice-President or the next
senior judge of International Court of
Justice, who is not a national of either
Contracting Party. The third arbitrator
shall not be a national of either Contracting
Party.
(ii) The parties shall appoint their
respective arbitrators within two months.
(iii) The arbitral award shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement and shall be binding on the
parties to the dispute.
(iv) The arbitral tribunal shall state the
basis of its decision and give reasons upon
the request of either party.
(3) Where a dispute has been submitted for
resolution under paragraph 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) or
2(d) above, the choice so exercised shall not be
changed except with the consent of the
Contracting Party which is party to the dispute.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
paragraph (2) above, the Contracting Party
which is a party to the dispute shall have the
option to submit the dispute for resolution to
international arbitration in accordance with
procedure set out in paragraph 2(d) above."
42. Thus, under Article 8 of the BIT Agreement, the investor has the
following options -
a) Invoking arbitration under Indian law;
b) If the countries are parties to the Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes, the disputes can be referred to ICSID;
c) To seek conciliation of the disputes under the UNCITRAL
Conciliation Rules;
d) To seek adjudication of the disputes by an ad-hoc Tribunal in
accordance with the UNCITRAL arbitration rules.
43. India is not a party to the ICSID convention, though the ICSID
mechanism is sometimes invoked by parties. Thus, in terms of arbitration
the investor could have invoked arbitration in accordance with the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or sought constitution of an ad-hoc
Arbitral Tribunal under the UNCITRAL Rules. In the present case, the
investor has opted the latter.
44. Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration reads as under:
"1. The arbitral tribunal shall have the power to rule
on objections that it has no jurisdiction, including any
objections with respect to the existence or validity of
the arbitration clause or of the separate arbitration
agreement.
2. The arbitral tribunal shall have the power to
determine the existence or the validity of the contract
of which an arbitration clause forms a part. For the
purposes of article 21, an arbitration clause which
forms part of a contract and which provides for
arbitration under these Rules shall be treated as an
agreement independent of the other terms of the
contract. A decision by the arbitral tribunal that the
contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the
invalidity of the arbitration clause.
3. A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have
jurisdiction shall be raised not later than in the
statement of defence or, with respect to a counter-
claim, in the reply to the counterclaim.
4. In general, the arbitral tribunal should rule on a
plea concerning its jurisdiction as a preliminary
question. However, the arbitral tribunal may proceed
with the arbitration and rule on such a plea in their
final award."
45. The BIT Agreement in the present case is governed by the
UNCITRAL Rules. The Tribunal constituted under these Rules has the
power to rule on objections that it has no jurisdiction, including any
objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration clause
or of the separate arbitration agreement. The objection to jurisdiction is to be
raised not later than the filing of the statement of defence. The Arbitral
Tribunal is expected to, in general, rule on its jurisdiction as a preliminary
issue.
46. A perusal of Article 21 shows that the Tribunal is governed by the
principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, which, in effect, means that the Tribunal
can rule on its own jurisdiction. On this aspect, the judgment in Vodafone
Judgment (supra) observes as under:
"134. The principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, is
recognised in Article 21 of the UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules, 1976 and the same is explicitly
engrafted in the India-United Kingdom BIPA. It is
generally accepted that an arbitral tribunal has the
power to investigate its own jurisdiction.
135. The principle that arbitrators have the
jurisdiction to consider and decide the existence and
extent of their own jurisdiction is variously referred to
as the kompetenz-kompetenz principle or the 'who
decides' question.
136. Under the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, the
arbitrators are competent to determine their
jurisdiction although the effective exercise of that
jurisdiction remains subject to the inherent
competence of the seat-court (i.e. the place of
arbitration as stipulated in the agreement or as fixed
by the arbitrators/parties) to decide, in relation to an
injunction to restrain international arbitration,
whether a particular dispute falls within the scope of
the arbitration agreement.
137. Whether the arbitrators under the India-United
Kingdom BIPA choose to stay the arbitral
proceedings properly brought before them, whilst
related arbitration proceedings are pending is
entirely a matter for them under the doctrine of
kompetenz-kompetenz and the circumstance that
arbitrators may do so cannot form an appropriate
basis for the National Court to restrain the
arbitration.
...
139. This Court is of the opinion that it should apply
the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz with full rigour
as India-United Kingdom BIPA arbitral tribunal
would be better placed to assess the scope of the two
BIPA arbitration proceedings and the likelihood of
parallel proceedings and abuse of process."
47. The continuation of the arbitral proceedings under the BIT, at this
stage, may per se not be contrary to public policy. It is a principle of public
policy that the Government has to honour its commitments including
bilateral ones. The representations made by any state under either a bilateral
or multilateral treaty is what holds the community of nations together. The
adherence to treaties is therefore not just a contractual stipulation but a
solemn commitment by a sovereign nation. Thus, the continuation of arbitral
proceedings is the rule and not the exception.
48. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata Vs. Louis Dreyfus
Armatures SAS [G.A. 1997 of 2014 decision dated 29th September, 2014]
the Calcutta High Court held that the question of whether an entity is to be
treated as an investor under the BIT Agreement is to be determined by the
Arbitral Tribunal. The observation of the Court is as under:
"The bilateral treaty is between the two sovereign
nations. An investor under the treaty has been given
certain special rights and privileges which is
enforceable under the treaty. Whether the notification
of claim falls within such parameters and the
Defendant No.1 could be treated as an investor is a
matter to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal duly
constituted under the relevant rules. In the event, the
preliminary objections are overruled and the Arbitral
Tribunal is of the opinion that the matter can proceed
and continuation of such proceeding would not be a
recipe for confusion and injustice.
The Union of India would be required to contest the
matter on merits"
49. The BIT Agreement in the present case defines `investor‟ as under:
""investor" means in respect to either Contracting
Party:
i. the "national", that is a natural person deriving his
or her status as a national of that Contracting Party
from the relevant laws of that Contracting Party;
and
ii. the "company that is a legal person, such as a
corporation, firm or association, incorporated or
constituted in accordance with the law of the
Contracting Party;"
50. There are no exceptions to the definition of „investor‟ as are contained
in several BIT agreements which exclude entities indirectly owned or
controlled by citizens of a contracting State. The BIT Agreement has to have
specific provisions, if such exclusions are to be read into the definition of
`investor‟. The BIT between India and Mauritius subject matter of the
present case was executed in 1998 with effect from 20th June 2000.
51. It is seen that due to issues that have arisen in various disputes like the
present case, recently, in 2016, the Union of India has introduced a `Model
Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty‟, the provisions of which are
different from the BIT Agreement which is the subject matter of the present
dispute.
52. The arbitral proceedings, at the moment, are however, governed by
the BIT that is currently in force between the parties. The proceedings in the
present case commenced way back in 2013 when the notice invoking
arbitration was issued. The Tribunal has been constituted in May 2018.
Thereafter the first hearing of the Tribunal was scheduled for 28 th January
2019. Prior to the first hearing of the Tribunal, the Republic of India has
challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to proceed with the
arbitration. While holding that the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted
from hearing the present suit and that there is no acquiescence by the
Republic of India to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, which estops it
from approaching this Court, it is held that the question as to whether
Khaitan Holdings is a genuine `investor‟, based out of Mauritius, which can
invoke the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is a question to be
determined by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the BIT Agreement. It
is nigh possible that the foreign investor is not a real investor but Defendant
no.3 Sh. Ishwari Prasad Khaitan, posing as one. The Arbitral Tribunal
would, as part of its enquiry, look into this issue as to whether Khaitan
Holdings is a bona fide investor and whether the invocation of the
arbitration clause by Khaitan Holdings is an attempt to take unfair advantage
as held in the case of Phoenix Action Ltd Vs. The Czech Republic (ICSID
Case No. ARB/06/5).
53. The grounds on which the Republic of India seeks an anti-arbitration
injunction are inter alia as under:
That Khaitan Holdings is not a genuine investor due to the clear link
and control by Sh. Ishwari Prasad Khaitan and Smt.Kiran Khaitan of
both Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) and Loop Telecom;
That the BIT cannot be invoked by an entity, though incorporated in
Mauritius, but is actually controlled by Indian citizens;
That there has been no expropriation as due process has been
followed and the decision to cancel the licences was rendered by the
Supreme Court of India in public interest;
That the entire foreign investment, being through the automatic route,
was subject to Indian laws under the UASL;
That Loop Telecom has already availed of its remedies against the
cancellation of its licences under Indian law and hence rights under
the BIT stand waived;
Overlapping nature of the claims raised by Loop Telecom before
TDSAT and Defendant no.1 in the arbitral proceedings;
54. All the above grounds, are those that can be that with and decided by
the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitration having been invoked in 2013 and the
Tribunal having been constituted and being seized of the dispute, it is not for
this Court to adjudicate on these issues. The above issues ought to be raised
by the Republic of India before the Arbitral Tribunal, which under Article
21, would rule upon the same. The proceedings which are already underway
cannot be termed as being oppressive, vexatious or an abuse of process at
this stage. The prayer for ad-interim relief seeking stay of the arbitral
proceedings commenced by Khaitan Holdings under the BIT, is accordingly
rejected, at this stage.
55. The observations made above are merely prima facie in nature and are
not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter.
56. Defendants to file their replies within two weeks and Rejoinder within
two weeks. List on 5th March, 2019
CS(OS) 46/2019 & I.A. 1238/2019 (u/Order XIII Rule 10)
57. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
58. Since Defendants 2 to 5 are yet to enter appearance and formal notices
and summons by the Court are yet to be served, it is directed that the
summons and notices be served on all Defendants by all modes. Dasti in
addition.
59. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement
to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of
summons. Defendant No.1 has put in appearance through counsel. Let a
written statement be filed by Defendant No.1 within 30 days as well. Along
with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of
admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written
statement shall not be taken on record.
60. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of
the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, if any, filed
by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the
Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not
be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any
documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines
prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
61. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 18th April,
2019. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would
be liable to be burdened with costs.
62. List before Court on 5th March, 2019.
63. A copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court
Master.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2019
Rekha/Rahul/dk
