Case #5

FORUM

VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORA IN KOLKATA INCLUDING THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

ISSUES INVOLVED

Recovery of money invested in a real estate project.

CASE SYNOPSIS

Our client, an Indian conglomerate, had invested in a proposed real estate project of a premier real estate giant in Kolkata. However, the developer’s position deteriorated thereafter. The project (funded by one of India’s largest NBFCs, became non-starter).

SOLUTION

The client approached us to suggest ways to recover their money. Multiple companies of our client’s group were involved. The case appeared complicated as the amount was large, a number of winding up applications were pending against the real estate company and there were no visible assets available for recovery. The litigation strategy involved identification of the party / assets that could be legally claimed for recovery. Multiple litigations were involved in multiple for a; notices were issued on the identified solvent party, otherwise a known party to the transaction. The complex legal strategy empowered our client to negotiate and arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement.

Case #6

FORUM

Delhi High Court

ISSUE INVOLVED

Valid issuance of a tender by the tendering authority

CASE SYNOPSIS

The matter pertained to a dispute concerning the tender floated by our client, a government undertaking. The dispute was raised by the L2 bidder. According to the L2 bidder, there was a breach in the tender of essential conditions. The award of the contract to the L1 bidder by our client was also challenged. The L2 bidder also challenged the process of selection and the selection basis.

SOLUTION

The L1 bidder did not submit an essential annexure forming a part of the tender documents; the contents of the annexure could be found in other documents comprising the tender documents. Our commercial and practical approach in convincing the court that even if the specific document was not signed but having regard to the other documents submitted it could be inferred that the L1 accepted the conditions. Hence, the approach of the tendering authority was not arbitrary. We succeeded in convincing the court that the decision making process was multifold and there was no arbitrariness in L1 bidder selection. The division bench of the High Court of Delhi held that there was no material breach, unreasonableness, bias or malafides in awarding the tender to L1. The matter was adjudicated in favour of our client.

Case #7

FORUM

Punjab and Haryana High Court

ISSUE INVOLVED

Valid issuance of a tender by the tendering authority.

CASE SYNOPSIS

A writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, wherein the tender conditions in the tender floated by our client, a governmental undertaking, for LiDar aerial survey of land. The tender floated by our client was challenged for alleged restrictive conditions in the tender documents. It was further alleged that the tender conditions were favorable to a niche.

SOLUTION

Our objective was to get the petition dismissed on the first instance by convincing the court of a technical legal point that the tendering authority was the best judge to decide on the relevant conditions while floating the tender. We were able to convince the court that the matter was pre mature. We also demonstrated that the tender conditions were not restrictive and that the tender conditions were suitably justified without favoring any niche.

Case #8

FORUM

Bombay High Court

ISSUES INVOLVED

Directors cannot be made liable for the criminal acts of the Company.

CASE SYNOPSIS

Our client, the appellants, were Directors in a company that had issued cheques in relation to commercial transactions that had taken place between the company and the other party. The negotiable instrument bounced; proceedings were initiated against the company, Directors and our clients. A decree was passed wherein our clients and the company were required to make good the amount to the petitioner.

SOLUTION

We suggested that an appeal be filed against the decree and establish that the Directors’ liability is different from that of the Company and that the decree was not maintainable against our client even if they were the Directors. The matter was decided in favor of our client. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed an order that the decree should not be pressed against our client and could be executed against the Company.