Introduction
From commercial and enforcement proceedings, namely O.M.P. (COMM.) 88/2020 and O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 3/2018 against petitioners such as Roger Shashoua, and respondents such as Mukesh Sharma. While the entire text encompasses numerous pages and the width of procedural subtleties, the essential contours of the order demonstrate a prudent determination on interlocutory applications, standing of parties, and compliance with orders passed earlier.
Background of the case
The proceedings in the Delhi High Court arose from business differences between the petitioners and respondents. The petitions included several interrelated applications and several others for the years 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2021.
Specifically, one of the essential interlocutory applications involved Petitioner No. 1 (Roger Shashoua)'s death on 22 January 2021 and issued a prayer for placing on record his death certificate and replacing or striking out his name from the list of parties. Non-payment of costs already awarded (according to a January 2022 order) by the respondents to the petitioners was also addressed by the court.
Key Issues Dealt with – Sections 151 and 48
Justice Singh's ruling touched upon two fundamental points:
1.Substitution/Removal upon death under Section 151 CPC
The court recognized the death of Roger Shashoua, affirming relief for placing on record the death certificate and striking out his name from the proceedings as befitting civil procedure standards.
2. Objections under Section 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Connected interlocutory petitions likewise touched on objections under Section 48 and associated compliance measures. The judge reserved the respondents' defense, while the petitioner raised non-payment for previous costs ordered in January 2022.
Costs and Compliance
The petitioners emphasized that the costs issued in the previous January 2022 order remained unpaid. The decision highlighted such non-compliance, emphasizing the procedural requirement of fulfilling court-directed costs before further adjudication.
Overall Result and Judicial Impact
Justice Singh's ruling mostly addressed procedural housekeeping on substitution and deletion of a dead party, and ensuring compliance with court-imposed costs instead of resolving the underlying commercial or arbitral disputes. The judgment consequently opens the door for the substantive issues to proceed in a proper, compliant, and procedurally sound format.
The verdict
The Court held that the conduct of Respondent No.2, controlled by Respondent No.1, was clearly aimed at evading the arbitral process and avoiding the consequences of an adverse award. Since Respondent No.1 was the controlling person behind Respondent No.2 and had duly participated in the proceedings, the requirements of natural justice were satisfied. The Court further observed that earlier findings against Respondent No.2 operated as res judicata, binding the parties in the arbitral proceedings as well.
Consequently, the objections of Respondent No.2 were found unsustainable. The Court imposed costs of ?5,00,000 on the respondents, payable to the petitioners, considering the prolonged litigation spanning several years and multiple fora.
In Perspective
This ruling, although not disposing of the underlying dispute, is a vital procedural turning point. It emphasizes the Delhi High Court's determination to maintain judicial decorum, compliance with court charges and cost orders, and orderly litigation even in multi-year, multi-application commercial matters with deceased or otherwise altered parties.
From a wider perspective, it emphasizes:
• The importance of compliance with costs orders issued after interim orders on time.
• The court's balanced strategy in facilitating procedural matters (such as death and substitution) promptly, to prevent lags in adjudication.
• The anchoring of justice in not merely deciding cases on merits but even in upholding procedural integrity.
The judgment is an important administrative milestone in a long-running commercial case law, with its focus on dignity to the dead, enforcement of cost requirements, and procedural transparency, paving the way for further hearings in due course.
Case Reference: ROGER SHASHOUA & OTHERS VERSUS MUKESH SHARMA & OTHERS, O.M.P. (COMM) 88 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
