Case: CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd., Vs. BPL Communications Ltd &amp; Others

3. In terms of the investment agreement the appellant had agreed to invest 52 million US $ approximately in Respondent 1 Company in consideration for the issuance of preference and equity shares in Respondent 1 to the appellant. The investment agreement mentioned the fact that by way of collateral security the pledge agreement was to be executed between five named shareholders of Respondent 1 and the appellant.4. According to the appellant it became entitled to enforce the pledge agreement against the said shareholders. Accordingly, by letter datedit called upon the said shareholders to deposit their shares with the custodian along with duly executed transfer forms. The said shareholders did not comply with the demand on the ground that the preconditions for the enforcement of the pledge agreement had not been fulfilled. The pledge agreement contained an arbitration clause. In view of the disputes between the appellant and the said shareholders the appellants approached this Court under S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. This Court appointed one Sigvard Jarvin of Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, 120, Rue du Faubourg Saint Honore 75008, Paris, France, as a sole arbitrator.5. Onthe appellant filed a statement of claim before the arbitrator and also made an application for interim relief. Ona notice was issued by the arbitrator calling upon the said shareholders to offer their comments byas to why the interim relief as prayed for by the appellant should not be granted. It is unnecessary to go into the correspondence between the said shareholders and the arbitrator at this stage except to note that the said shareholders did not submit any comment to the arbitrator in respect of the prayer of the appellant for interim relief before the date specified. In these circumstances, the arbitrator passed an order oninter alia, directing the said shareholderscomply with clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the agreement to pledge and refrain from mortgaging, encumbering, disposing of or otherwise alienating any of their ordinary shares held in BPL, and remain the legal and beneficial owners of at least 10,760,000 ordinary shares in BPL until full repayment of all sums owing to CDCFS under the preference share agreement and the redemption of CDCFSs preference shares in BPL.(2) disclose all documents evidencing the pledges and undertakings alleged to have been given by the respondents to other institutions.In the meanwhile, onRespondent 1 had filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Telecommunications, the Director General (Investigation), the Income Tax Department and the Securities and Exchange Board of India being Respondents 1 to 5 respectively, to investigate into the matter and ascertain whether there had been any breach of the Indian Exchange Control Laws, the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, fraud on the Indian Revenue and/or any other laws by Respondent 6 (namely, Appellant 1 herein). Prayer (b) in the writ petition which is of relevance to the present appeal, reads asGrant a permanent and mandatory injunction and order in the form of a writ of prohibition or otherwise against Respondents 6 to 11 implementing or acting in furtherance of the preference share agreement and/or the agreement to pledge dated(Annexure H) as being illegal, legally invalid and not binding on the parties and unenforceable as being violative of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the National Telecom Policy, 1999, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, the Exchange Control Laws and the Foreign Direct Investment Guidelines and the Regulations of the Government of India.The learned Single Judge of the High Court issued a notice on the writ petition but did not grant any interim relief. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal against the refusal of the learned Single Judge to pass any interim order. The submissions made on behalf of Respondent 1 in its appeal, in brief, were that the enforcement of the pledge agreement and the creation of pledge of equity shares in favour of the appellant by the said shareholders, might result in cancellation of the cellular licence in favour of Respondent 1. The Division Bench passed an order ondirecting the parties to maintain "status quo as it exists today for five weeks".8. This order was communicated to the arbitrator by one of the five shareholders. In addition, the said five shareholders also expressed their view that the arbitrator had acted in a biased manner in passing the interim order onand, therefore, they would approach the "appropriate forum" for his removal.9. The arbitrator by a letter datedreplied to the threat of the five shareholders to remove him stating that it was open for him to decide on that issue under S.13(2) of the 1996 Act. He reiterated the contents of an earlier notice sent by him by which he had called a meeting of the parties onThe items on the agenda included the following:4.2. An exchange of views on the effect on the present arbitration of the order of the Karnataka High Court.4.3. The arbitrators order dated 2nd July, 2002 for interim and conservatory relief (the respondents compliance with the order; possible applications by the parties in regard to the order).4.7. Indication by the parties how they wish to proceed further in this matter, following the arbitrators order datedin particular, how they wish to prove their respective cases (written evidence, oral evidence, expert witnesses).10. Respondent 1 then filed three interlocutory applications before the Division Bench of the High Court. In the first application Respondent 1 prayed for the initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant on the allegation that the appellant had not obeyed the interim order datedThe second interlocutory application contained a prayer to direct the appellant to maintain the status quo and not to take steps or to participate in the arbitration proceedings in any manner whatsoever until the disposal of the contempt application. The third application was for a direction on the appellant and its Director to be personally present before the High Court so that "substantial justice" could be done by sending them to prison in the event the appellant and its Director were unable to sufficiently explain their action.11. The High Court passed a second order onon these applications. The High Court said that it was not appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellant, but the High Court directed that the arbitrator would not take cognizance of the controversy pending in the Court, more particularly when the five shareholders being Respondents 7 to 11 had been restrained from pledging their equity shares in favour of the appellant and when there was a direction by the High Court to maintain status quo until further orders. The operative portion of the order readswe direct that Respondent 6 (the appellant before us) is restrained to participate on Agenda Items 4.2, 4.3 and 4.7 and the arbitrator will not take cognizance of the said agenda items in view of the status quo order of this Court, wherein Respondent 6 is ainterim order granted onwas also directed to continue until further orders.12. The appellants have impugned the orders dated02 before us.

Reasoning:
14. Whatever may be the merits of the writ application, we are of the view and it has been fairly conceded by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1 that the High Court should have had regard to S.5 of the 1996 Act before granting the reliefs it did. Under S.5 of the 1996 Act, courts are restrained from interfering with arbitration except in the manner provided in the 1996 Act. That the orders passed by the High Court would amount to a violation of this mandate is not seriously disputed by the respondents. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the High Court without expressing our views on the merits of the contentions of the parties in any manner whatsoever. The orders dated02 are accordingly, set aside. The respondents are restrained from moving any applications in the pending writ petition which would have the effect of interfering with the continuance and conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The appeal of Respondent 1 before the Division Bench being preferred from the refusal to grant an interim order, does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. The matter shall now be heard by the learned Single Judge and disposed of in accordance with law.