Supreme Court Directs Execution of Share Purchase Agreement in Corporate Dispute Over IT Park Acquisition. Court holds that SPA is necessary to effectuate earlier order and does not prejudice rights of respondents.

  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application in a civil appeal concerning the acquisition of shares in I.T. Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 3) by M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (GLI) of the Bhutani Group. The dispute arose from an earlier order dated 18.02.2020, wherein GLI had undertaken to pay Rs. 99,44,55,000 for the entire shareholding of the appellants and respondent nos. 1 and 2 in respondent no. 3. GLI had deposited Rs. 10 crores as down payment and the appellants deposited Rs. 26 crores pursuant to subsequent orders. The appellants sought a direction for respondent nos. 1 and 2 to execute a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) to enable GLI to raise funds. The Court noted that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had initially agreed to execute the SPA but later resiled. The Court held that execution of the SPA was justified and necessary to effectuate the earlier order, and would not prejudice respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Court directed the appellants and respondent nos. 1 and 2 to execute the SPA within three weeks, provide warranties regarding encumbrances and shareholdings, and place board resolutions. The Court also ordered release of Rs. 26 crores to respondent nos. 1 and 2, while retaining Rs. 10 crores deposited by GLI until further orders. The application was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Share Purchase Agreement - Execution of SPA - Specific Performance - The Court directed the appellants and respondent nos. 1 and 2 to execute the SPA with GLI within three weeks, holding that the SPA is necessary to effectuate the earlier order and does not prejudice the rights of respondent nos. 1 and 2. (Paras 10-12)

B) Corporate Law - Warranties in Share Transfer - Encumbrance - The Court directed the parties to provide warranties that no encumbrance or third-party rights exist on the land and shareholdings, and to place certified copies of board resolutions authorizing the signatories. (Para 12(b)-(c))

C) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Release of Deposited Amount - The Court directed release of Rs. 26 crores deposited by appellants to respondent nos. 1 and 2, while retaining Rs. 10 crores deposited by GLI until further orders. (Para 12(d)-(e))

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can be directed to execute a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) to effectuate the acquisition of shares by GLI, as per the earlier order of the Court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the application and directed the appellants and respondent nos. 1 and 2 to execute the SPA with GLI within three weeks, provide warranties regarding encumbrances and shareholdings, and place board resolutions. The Court also directed release of Rs. 26 crores deposited by appellants to respondent nos. 1 and 2, and retention of Rs. 10 crores deposited by GLI until further orders. The miscellaneous application was disposed of.

Law Points

  • Execution of Share Purchase Agreement
  • Breach of Undertaking
  • Interim Relief
  • Contractual Obligations
  • Warranties in Share Transfer
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (6) 24

Misc. Application No. 929 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 1674 of 2020

2020-06-23

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate for Appellants; Mr. Nakul Dewan, Senior Advocate for GLI; Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

Shakti Nath & Ors.

Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Miscellaneous application in a civil appeal seeking direction for execution of Share Purchase Agreement to effectuate acquisition of shares.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to sign and execute a share purchase agreement to effectuate acquisition of shares held by them in Respondent No. 3 by GLI.

Filing Reason

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resiled from their earlier commitment to execute the SPA, hindering GLI's ability to raise funds for the transaction.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 18.02.2020 recorded GLI's undertaking to pay Rs. 99,44,55,000 for purchase of entire shareholding; Order dated 19.05.2020 permitted appellants to deposit Rs. 26 crores and granted extension for balance payment.

Issues

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can be directed to execute the Share Purchase Agreement with GLI? Whether execution of SPA would modify the final order dated 18.02.2020?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that execution of SPA is imperative to enable GLI to raise funds and comply with its obligations under the order dated 18.02.2020. GLI submitted that SPA is necessary for legal documentation and to raise funds from banks/NBFCs, and sought minimal warranties. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 objected that prayer would modify the final order and is contrary to ICC Arbitral Award; they offered to return shares after full payment or deposit shares in Court.

Ratio Decidendi

Execution of the Share Purchase Agreement is necessary to effectuate the earlier order and does not prejudice the rights of respondent nos. 1 and 2; GLI is entitled to legal documentation reflecting the agreement under which acquisition of shares would take place.

Judgment Excerpts

We are of the view that the execution of the SPA would not prejudice the rights and interest of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in any manner. GLI is entitled to the execution of the SPA, as the legal documentation reflecting the agreement under which the acquisition of shares would take place.

Procedural History

The matter originated from Civil Appeal No. 1674 of 2020. On 18.02.2020, the Court recorded GLI's undertaking to pay Rs. 99,44,55,000 for purchase of shares. On 19.05.2020, the Court permitted appellants to deposit Rs. 26 crores and granted extension for balance payment. The present Misc. Application was filed seeking direction for execution of SPA. After hearing parties, the Court disposed of the application with directions.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Execution of Share Purchase Agreement in Corporate Dispute Over IT Park Acquisition. Court holds that SPA is necessary to effectuate earlier order and does not prejudice rights of respondents.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Insurance Claim Dispute — Upholds Consumer Fora Orders for Compensation. Ownership of Vehicle Not Transferred Despite Sale Agreement; Insurer Liable to Pay Claim Amount with Interest.