BHARTI TELEVENTURES LIMITED Vs. CRYSTAL TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2011 whereby the appellants' objections under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter in short referred to as Arbitration Act) have been dismissed. The appellant by way of its objection under section 34 of the Arbitration Act had sought to challenge an award dated 28.05.2009 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator Dr. R.K.P. Shankardass, Sr. Advocate.

(2.) THE heart of the matter, so to say, is an arrangement, which is given shape, in the form of, two agreements dated 16.05.2001 and 27.05.2001 (collectively referred to as the share purchase agreements) requiring the respondent to facilitate acquisition of shareholding, of certain shareholders, in the company by the name of Skycell Telecommunications Ltd. (in short, Skycell) for the benefit of the appellant. THE agreement of 16.05.2001, concerned the acquisition of the shares held by DSS Enterprises Private Limited (in short, DSS) in Skycell, while the agreement of 27.05.2001, which is, a supplementary agreement entered ( premised on the agreement of 16.05.2001, that is, the principal agreement) required the respondent to acquire shares of two foreign companies i.e., Bellsouth International (Asia-Pacific) Inc. (in short, Bellsouth) and Millicom International Cellular S.A. (in short, Millicom). THE respondent who is the original claimant, therefore, claimed that having fulfilled its obligations in terms of the agreement dated 16.05.2001, it was entitled to the payment of fee fixed under the agreement by the appellant. 2.1 As we go on with the narrative, it would be a clear; a fact which is not disputed that, in the present proceedings, one is only concerned with, in substance, the fee, if any, payable to the respondent under the agreement dated 16.05.2001. THErefore, before we proceed further, it may be relevant to advert to, very briefly, the broad facts which obtain in the case, as noticed also, by the learned Arbitrator. Events obtaining prior to May 2001

(3.) IT appears that this MOU, did not fructify, in view of the fact that some of the shareholders of DSS had filed a petition before the Company Law Board (in short, CLB). By virtue of certain order dated 07.04.1999, passed by the CLB, DSS could not sell its share in Skycell without the permission and approval of CLB in this regard. There were also other impediments in the fruition of this MOU, in the form of, a Non Disposal Undertaking given by DSS to a lender i.e., one Credit Agricole Indo-Suez Bank by way of a collateral security.