DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED Vs. OSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present proceedings arise out of an action initiated by Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Daiichi") for enforcing a Foreign Arbitral Award dtd. 29/4/2016 made in Singapore and passed in favour of Daiichi and against 20 Respondents i.e. Respondent 1: Malvinder Mohan Singh, Respondent 2: Malvinder Mohan Singh as Karta of HUF, Respondent No.3: Malvinder Mohan Singh as Trustee of Bhai Hospital Trust, Respondent No.4: Japna M. Singh, Respondent 5: Nimrita Singh, Respondent 6: Shivinder Mohan Singh, Respondent 7: Shivinder Mohan Singh as Karta of HUF, Respondent 8: Aditi Singh, Respondent 9: Anhad Parvinder Singh, Respondent 10: Kabir Parvinder Singh, Respondent 11: Udayveer Singh, Respondent 12: Vivan Singh, Respondent 13: Nimmi Singh, Respondent 14: Oscar Investments Ltd., Respondent 15: Malav Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Respondent 16: Modland Wear Pvt. Ltd., Respondent 17: Fern Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Respondent 18: ANR Securities Pvt. Ltd., Respondent 19: RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Respondent 20: Oscar Traders (Partnership Firm) ("Respondents/ Judgment Debtors"), directing them to jointly and severally pay a sum of approximately INR 2562 crores with further additional pre-award interest (4.44%) and post-award interest (5.33%), in Arbitration Case No.19074/CYK. The Award was challenged in Singapore as well as in India but the objections were dismissed and the Award became final. In the proceedings initiated for enforcement of said Award in the High Court,[High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.]. an objection was raised under Sec. 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'). However, said objection was dismissed except insofar as original respondents No. 5 and 9 to 12, who were minors when the award was declared. The further challenge in this Court to the rejection of the objection did not succeed and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4276 of 2018 preferred therefrom was dismissed by this Court on 16/2/2018.

(2.) In the enforcement proceedings being OMP (EFA) (Comm.) No. 6 of 2016 initiated by Daiichi, an apprehension was expressed that the Respondents were engaging in designs to move the assets outside the reach of Daiichi. It was submitted that Fortis Healthcare Holdings Private Limited ("FHHPL") was a holding company under the control of the Respondents and the value of its shares was derived solely from the value of the downstream operating company- Fortis Healthcare Limited ("FHL"); and that FHL shares held by FHHPL were being sold/ encumbered by the Respondents. In said proceedings, an undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 14 and 19 was recorded by the High Court in its order dtd. 21/6/2017 in following terms:

(3.) In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20417 of 2017 the aforestated order dtd. 21/6/2017 is under challenge mainly on the ground that rather than recording said undertaking of the learned counsel, the High Court ought to have issued appropriate process to secure the assets of those against whom the Award was passed. As a matter of fact, the undertaking so recorded in the order dtd. 21/6/2017 was the fifth assurance / undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 14 and 19. Previous four such assurances were recorded by this Court in its judgment and order dtd. 15/11/2019,["The judgement", for short.]. passed in Vinay Prakash Singh vs. Sameer Gehlaut and Ors. as under: