Ameet Lalchand Shah versus Rishabh Enterprises on 3 May, 2018

Ameet Lalchand Shah versus Rishabh Enterprises on 3 May, 2018

May 4, 2018 by journalist

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Common APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Common APPEAL NO. 4690 OF 2018

(Emerging out of SLP(C) No.16789 of 2017)

AMEET LALCHAND SHAH AND OTHERS … Appellants

Versus

RISHABH ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave conceded.

1. This intrigue emerges out of the judgment dated 17.04.2017 cruised by

the Delhi High Court in FAO(OS) (COMM) No.85 of 2017 in and by which

the Division Bench insisted the request of the Single Judge rejecting the

application documented under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (the 'Demonstration') by holding that the assentions between the gatherings are

not between associated with the key understanding dated 05.03.2012 and

along these lines, the gatherings can't be alluded to intervention according to the choice

in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and another (2003)

5 SCC 531.

Mark Not Verified

Carefully marked by

NEETU KHAJURIA

Date: 2018.05.03

13:39:33 IST

Reason:

1. Brief certainties which prompted documenting of this intrigue are as per the following:-

1

On 01.02.2012, the primary respondent – Rishabh Enterprises (the

'Rishabh'), the sole ownership worry of the second respondent –

Dr. A.M. Singhvi went into two concurrences with M/s Juwi India

Sustainable power sources Pvt. Ltd. (Juwi India) to be specific:- (I) Equipment and

Material Supply Contract for buy of intensity creating types of gear to

the tune of Rs.8,89,80,730/ - ; and (ii) Engineering, Installation and

Dispatching Contract for establishment and appointing of the Solar

Plant for Rs.2,20,19,270/ - . Both these assentions contain assertion

condition.

1. The primary respondent – Rishabh went into Sale and Purchase

Assention dated 05.03.2012 with the second litigant organization –

Astonfield Renewables Private Limited (Astonfield) for obtaining CIS

Photovoltaic items to be rented to appealing party No.3 – Dante Energy Pvt.

Ltd. (Dante Energy) to be introduced at the Solar Plant at Dongri, Raksa,

Area Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. According to the assention, these items

were esteemed for Rs.25,16,00,000/ - . The second appealing party – Astonfield

gotten Rs.21,40,49,999/ - from the respondents under different checks

issued by the Rishabh. This assention dated 05.03.2012 does not

contain the intervention proviso. As indicated by the appellants, a measure of

Rs.10,00,00,000/ - with money was paid back to the children of Dr. A.M. Singhvi

for example Rs.2,50,00,000/ - to Mr. Avishkar Singhvi and Rs.7,50,00,000/ - to

2

Mr. Anubhav Singhvi. An Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) dated

14.03.2012 was gone into between the Rishabh and Dante Energy

whereby Dante Energy consented to pay the Rishabh Rs.13,50,000/ - as

rent lease for March, 2012 and from April, 2012 onwards, the said lease

payable was Rs.28,26,000/ - . The Solar Plant at Jhansi has been

authorized and invigorated on 16.03.2012.

1. Substance of the assentions are as under:-

S.No. DATE OF CONTRACTING PURPOSE OF CONTRACT ARBITRATION

CONTRACT PARTY AGREEMENT

1. 01.02.2012 Rishabh (I) Rishabh to buy Both assentions

Undertakings control creating contain mediation

gone into two types of gear - proviso - Parties

concurrences with Rs.8,89,80,730/ - concurred that the seat

M/s. Juwi India of intervention will be

(ii) Engineering, Installation

Sustainable at Bombay

furthermore, commission of the

Energies Pvt.

plant at Jhansi -

Ltd.

Rs.2,20,19,270/ -

1. 05.03.2012 Rishabh entered (I) Purchasing CIS This understanding

into understanding Photovoltaic items to does not contain

with M/s. Aston be rented to Dante Energy discretion statement.

Renewables (Appellant no.3) for

Pvt. Ltd. invigorating sun oriented plant

(appealing party no.2) introduced at Jhansi -

Rs.21,40,49,999/ -

1. 14.03.2012 Rishabh entered Dante consented to pay This assention

into assention Rs.13,50,000/ - as rent lease contains discretion

with M/s. Dante for the gear for March, statement. Gatherings have

Vitality Pvt. Ltd. 2012 and from April, 2012 concurred that the seat

(litigant no.3) onwards, Rs.28,26,000/ - per of mediation will be

month. at Bombay.

1. Question emerged between the gatherings when respondents asserted that

appealing party No. 3 – Dante Energy has defaulted in installment of lease and that

Astonfield submitted misrepresentation by actuating the Rishabh to buy the

Photovoltaic items by contributing gigantic sum. The respondents have

3

additionally asserted that the appellants have submitted deception and

criminal break of trust so far as the types of gear acquired and rented to

Dante Energy. The respondents have additionally documented a criminal objection

before the Economic Offenses Wing at Delhi against the appellants,

in light of which, FIR No. 30 of 2015 was enlisted. The appellants

have documented writ request bearing CWP No.619 of 2016 preceding the High

Court of Delhi looking for subduing of the said FIR which is sub judice.

There was likewise an enquiry by the Income Tax Authorities chasing

clarification from the appellants with respect to exchange of cash to the children

of Dr. A.M. Singhvi for example Rs.2,50,00,000/ - to Mr. Avishkar Singhvi and

Rs.7,50,00,000/ - to Mr. Anubhav Singhvi. Appealing party No.1 – Ameet

Lalchand Shah was brought by the Income Tax Authorities chasing

clarification concerning exchange of the said cash to the children of Dr.

A.M. Singhvi.

1. Inferable from the question between the gatherings, appealing party No.3 – Dante

Vitality issued see dated 13.02.2016 summoning assertion proviso and

named Justice Sujata Manohar, previous Judge, Supreme Court of

India as the Arbitrator. The respondents to be specific the Rishabh and its sole

owner favored a Civil Suit (Commercial) No.195 of 2016 preceding the

High Court on 11.03.2016 against every one of the appellants leveling different

charges including extortion and distortion. In the suit, various

4

reliefs were guaranteed:- (I) for a presentation that Sale and Purchase

Understanding dated 05.03.2012; Equipment and Material Supply Contract,

Building, Installation and Commissioning Contract both dated

01.02.2012 and Equipment Lease Agreement dated 14.03.2012 are

vitiated by genuine extortion submitted by the appellants and that the

understandings are void; (ii) for recuperation of a whole of Rs.32,22,80,288/ -

which the appellants are mutually and seriously at risk to pay to the

respondents; (iii) to pay an aggregate of Rs.19,31,74,804/ - as the enthusiasm on the

aforementioned measure of Rs.32,22,80,288/ - at the rate of 18% per annum

from the date of the understanding for example 01.02.2012 till the date of the

acknowledgment; and (iv) to pay unfulfilled obligations of rent lease.

1. On receipt of notice and request in the suit, the

appellants/respondents favored application I.A. No.4158 of 2016 under

Segment 8 of the Act looking for reference of the question between the

gatherings to mediation relating to all the four understandings. The appellants

looked for reference to mediation of all the four understandings by

battling that the Sale and Purchase Agreement (05.03.2012) is the

primary understanding and that other three assentions are between associated as

they are executed between similar gatherings and the commitments and the

execution of the terms of the assentions are between associated viz.

authorizing of the Photovoltaic Solar Plant at Dongri, Raksa, District

5

Jhansi, U.P. The respondents Rishabh and Dr. A.M. Singhvi opposed the

application by battling that the suit is for statement that the

assentions are vitiated because of extortion and distortion and keeping in mind that along these lines,

the issue can't be alluded to intervention. It was further affirmed that

the suit is neither worried about the understanding dated 01.02.2012 with

Juwi India nor worried about Equipment Lease Agreement

(14.03.2012); while the suit is worried about the bogus affirmations

what's more, misrepresentation played by the appellants Ameet Lalchand Shah and Dante

Vitality with respect to which a criminal case has additionally been enrolled and

thus, the debate isn't referable to assertion.

1. The scholarly Single Judge by request dated 15.03.2017 rejected the

application recorded under Section 8 of the Act holding that the Equipment

Rent Agreeme

Article sources: https://medium.com/@100dollardesign/lecture-notes-lal-chand-money-laundering-7c03e8c2c7a6
https://lalchandlcwell.wixsite.com/lalchand
https://www.reddit.com/user/makpak90/comments/aorjfp/lal_chand_advises_on_money_laundering/
https://thepakistanaffairs.com/lal-chand-bhatoro-group-well-being-festival/
https://twitter.com/ClubLal
http://www.stemproof.co.uk/tag/money-laundering/
http://www.stemproof.co.uk/lal-chand-bhatoro-group/
https://lalchandlcwell.wixsite.com/lalchand/home/lal-chand-a-story-of-humble-beginnings?fbclid=IwAR1gj74I7C3KZUUKM0NVTkHFBxyNR493VRJdS-BMUOdflvj1GRJ5l1nGfEI