NCLT Provisionally Stays Arbitration Proceedings Before Singapore Tribunal Against Anupam Mittal of Shaadi.com
NCLT Provisionally Stays Arbitration Proceedings Before Singapore Tribunal Against Anupam Mittal of Shaadi.com
The case relates to the dispute between the CEO and Westbridge Ventures on their stake in People Interactive (India)
The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has ordered an interim stay on arbitration proceedings involving Shaadi.com CEO Anupam Mittal, which is to commence before an arbitral tribunal in Singapore next week.
In the Anupam Mittal vs. People Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd and Ors case, a Coram of Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) passed the interim order stating, “In view of the peculiar facts, circumstances, and the settled law, we are of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted the relief of interim injunction and the arbitration proceedings scheduled from 18-22 September 2023 deserve to be stayed.”
The matter pertains to the dispute between Mittal and Westbridge Ventures on their stake in People Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, which owns the matrimonial website Shaadi.com.
Westbridge claimed it held certain contractual rights, including exit rights, in the Shareholders Agreement (SHA) executed with People Interactive. It contained an arbitration clause, wherein the seat of arbitration of disputes was stated to be in Singapore. However, the enforcement of the award was subject to Indian laws.
In 2019, disputes arose between the two entities on People Interactive’s management.
Mittal claimed that Westbridge’s actions including moves to appoint its nominees on the Board of Directors of People Interactive, amounted to oppression and mismanagement. He reasoned that since oppression cases were not arbitrable in India, the NCLT was the only available forum for his grievance redressal.
He added that even if an award on the issue of oppression was obtained from the Singapore tribunal, it would not be enforceable in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation (A&C) Act, 1996.
On the other hand, Westbridge stated that the dispute should be decided as per Singapore law because of a specific arbitration clause in the agreement. It elaborated that it was not able to exercise its exit rights as mentioned in the SHA. Therefore, it was a contractual dispute and not the company’s mismanagement issue.
In October 2021, Westbridge had obtained an anti-suit injunction in from the Singapore High Court restraining Mittal from proceeding with the company’s petition in the NCLT.
Aggrieved by the order, Mittal moved the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on the anti-suit injunction order, which stayed the order.
NCLT referred to the order of the high court, which recorded that if Westbridge was allowed to continue with the arbitration proceedings, it would cause irreparable loss to Mittal. While agreeing with the court’s observations, the tribunal granted the injunction till the pendency of the company’s petition.
The NCLT bench held, “We deem it appropriate to hold that Westbridge may still have a remedy of invoking Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act during the pendency of the company petition before NCLT. On the other hand, the continuation of arbitration proceedings in Singapore and getting the exit rights on the sale of shares by Westbridge will render Mittal remediless and the present petition infructuous.”
Senior advocates Ravi Kadam and Sharan Jagtiani with advocates Kunal Dwarkadas, Rahul Dwarkadas, Areez Gazdar, Nutash Kotwal, and Shireen Mistri appeared for Mittal.
Westbridge was represented by senior advocates Janak Dwarkadas and Nikhil Sakhardande with advocates Rajendra Barot, Anusha Jacob, Mrudula Dixit, and Richa Borthakur.
