About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Thursday, April 10, 2008

SC reserves judgement on Tata-Birla row on Idea

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgement on a petition filed by Tata Industries seeking arbitration to resolve a dispute related to termination of their joint venture Idea Cellular with Birlas. Justice V S Sirpurkar today reserved the order and directed the parties to submit their written submissions. Tata, which served two termination notices to its partner before selling its over 48 per cent stake in Idea Cellular, which was floated in October 2001, to the A V Birla group firm Grasim, has sought arbitration on the ground that Birlas violated the shareholder agreement (SHA). However, the A V Birla Group has rejected the call for arbitration. If the arbitration is settled in Tata group's favour, it will have the right to buy out Birlas' stake in Idea. Tata Group, which held 48.14 per cent stake in Idea through Tata Industries (TIL) and its subsidiary Apex Investments (Mauritius) Holding, had sold it to Grasim for Rs 4,406 crore last year even while the termination notices were pending. Alleging breach of SHA by Birlas, Tatas moved the apex court seeking to appoint a nominee arbitrator on behalf of Grasim as the latter had refused to appoint one. "The resolution of the existing disputes between the parties and the acceptance of the offer notice by the respondent (Grasim) are two distinct proceedings and cannot affect the continuance of the other," TIL stated. It added that a vested right to seek reparation against Birlas was created the moment the latter breached the provisions of the SHA by applying for a mobile licence for Mumbai circle. On the other hand, A V Birla group while seeking dismissal of "frivolous" petition filed by Tatas told the apex court that Tatas had agreed to a joint venture, competed with it and later walked out.

THE ECONOMIC TIMES; 8 Apr, 2008, 2243 hrs IST, PTI

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment