Sibal is demanding that Lalit Modi’s energy of lawyer be used to file SLP with the Supreme Court docket

The Supreme Court on Monday examined a petition by businessman Lalit Modi contesting a ruling by the Delhi Supreme Court declaring the arbitration injunction filed against him by his mother and siblings should be upheld.

As soon as the matter was picked up by a bank headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, senior attorney Kapil Sibal appealed against the respondents.

Sibal alleged that the copy served on respondents did not have the authority to submit the petition to the Supreme Court.

“The power of attorney is not attached to the petition. He cannot come to India as a refugee,” said Sibal, alluding to the fact that Modi had been in London for several years after the enforcement agency began investigating him for money laundering Accusations.

“We want to know with what power of attorney the petition was submitted. This is a crucial matter. That’s why I decline,” added Sibal.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who was videoconferencing for Modi from London, filed, “According to my instructions, the power of attorney is being filed.”

The bank, which included Judges R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, adjourned the matter until next week after ordering a copy of the power of attorney to be served on respondents.

The special leave request is being filed against a ruling by a dividing bank of the Delhi Supreme Court which found that the arbitration claim filed against Modi can be upheld.

The lawsuit was brought by Lalit Modi’s mother Bina Modi, sister Charu, and brother Samiras to limit the arbitration he initiated in Singapore over family property disputes. In March, a single bank of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismissed the lawsuits filed by Lalit Modi’s mother Bina, sister Charu and brother Samiras. The bank ruling was overturned last December by a division bank of Judges Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh.

In two separate lawsuits, Bina, Charu and Samir asserted that there was a certificate of trust between the family members and that the KK Modi family’s matters of trust could not be settled through arbitration abroad under Indian law.

On December 24, 2020, the Teilungsbank ruled that it was stipulated by law that “the court would have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against arbitration if the party requesting the injunction can demonstrate that the agreement is void, is ineffective or incapable. ” be performed”.

The Teilungsbank found that the complainants had put forward a prima facie argument that disputes arising from the family trust deed were not arbitral and therefore took the view that the sole proprietorship should have proceeded with the lawsuit.

“..we believe that the learned single judge has committed a grave error in not exercising the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal which has required him by law to determine whether the dispute between the parties relating to the Trust Deed per In our opinion, this is tantamount to a false exercise of jurisdiction by the learned single judge. The judgment under appeal cannot therefore be upheld because it failed to take into account that the trust deed is not an arbitration agreement in the law, ”observed the Dividing Bank.

The Head of Department was of the opinion that questions under the Trusts Act cannot be the subject of arbitration, as these are, by the necessary implication, excluded from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

“We are also of the opinion that the arbitral tribunal lacks inherent substantive jurisdiction in the present case; and this is not a case of simultaneous jurisdiction in view of the regulated legal situation that is at issue under the Trusts Act referred to here. Are at first sight incapable of We also believe that in the present case it appears that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction, and not that court, which has inherent jurisdiction to decide whether the disputes are arbitral, particularly if as in the present case the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated, “stated the 103-page ruling.

It was decided that the subject-matter of the dispute should have been assessed at first glance by the single judge who was to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on the court, since all parties are Indian citizens and the trust’s immovable property is located in India.

“We also believe that inherent and material rights in favor of the complainants urge that the disputes between the parties related to the trust deed were non-arbitral and therefore that they were properly entitled to pursue their material claims.” Relief of the explanation and the injunction, as prayed, “the bank said in conclusion.

The individual bank was of the opinion that it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide the question of arbitration of the dispute in accordance with Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Divisionsbank took the view that the trust of the individual bank in Section 16 was “out of place”.

“A fortiori, the judgment under appeal is wrong because it is incorrectly based on the principles set out in the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act – which is only a facilitating provision in light of the Constitution Bench in SBP & Co.’s decision against Patel Engineering and does not give the arbitral tribunal exclusive jurisdiction – without making a decision on the “non-arbitration” issue of the disputes. The trained sole judge also fell into error when he failed to recognize the dictum of the Vimal Supreme Court Kishor Shah (see above) stating that a trust deed is not an “arbitration agreement” by law “.

The single bank had also found that Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 prohibited the courts from issuing injunctions when an equivalent and effective remedy could be obtained through another course of action. The head of department also disagreed with this argument and stated:

“The reference to Section 41 (h) of the Special Facilitation Act of 1963 in the judgment under appeal is also deceptive, as the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, given the facts and circumstances set forth above, cannot provide relief to the present case, let alone one as well effective relief. The provisions of Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Arbitration Act exclude its applicability to the present case, since in our opinion the disputes that have arisen from the Trust Act are not disputes “.

The judgment related to the SC’s rulings in Vimal Kishor Shah v Jayesh Dinesh Shah, Kvaerner Cementation India Limited v Bajranglal Agarwal and an earlier judgment of the High Court at Mcdonalds India Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. against Vikram Bakshi.

According to plaintiffs, prior to his death in London in November 2019, KK Modi had a trust deed to record the terms of the 2006 oral family agreement between Bina, Lalit, Charu and Shamir.

Lalit Modi’s argument is that a clause in the trust deed allowed the sale of assets and distribution of proceeds if the family members failed to reach an agreement within the mandatory 30 days after KK Modi’s death. According to the trust deed, the beneficiaries are given one year to complete the sales process.

His mother and two siblings argued that if the trust deed was actually constructed, no such sale had been initiated.

The department bank ordered the listing of the two suits in front of the individual bank on January 8th.

Click here to read / download the order