A foreign arbitral award was passed in favour of Daichii Sankyo wherein an award for Rs. 3,500 Crores (720 Million Dollars) was passed against former Ranbaxy promoters, the Singh Brothers. The Singh Brothers approached the Singapore Court challenging the award, which was dismissed by the single judge bench of Justice Belinda Ang. The award was passed by a majority consisting of Professor Lawrence GS Boo, Karyll Nairn and Justice (Retd) AM Ahmadi on April 29, 2016. The award was made on the basis of concealment of facts by the Singh Brothers relating to a self-assessment report of fraudulent practices at Ranbaxy concerning a pending investigations by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Justice (DOJ).
The Singh Brothers had challenged the award before the Delhi High Court but was dismissed by Justice Jayant Nath in January 2018 with the exception of excluding the execution against the minors. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R Banumathi upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court.
In the appeal before the Singapore High Court, Daichii Sankyo was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium briefed by Pavan Bhushan and Jayavardhan Singh from GS Chambers, P&A Law Offices; Anand S Pathak, Amit K Mishra, Abhijeet Sinha, and Samridhi Hota along with Singapore-based law firm, Oon & Bazul LLP. The Singh Brothers was represented by senior advocate Harish Salve, Alvin Yeo, SC briefed by WongP LLP whereas the Minors were represented by Lee Eng Beng, SC briefed by Rajah and Tann LLP and DMD Advocates. Advocates Subramanium and Salve were granted leave to appear for the purpose of arguing on the aspects pertaining to the Indian laws which was the crux for adjudication of the appeal.
In its reasoning to setting aside the appeal, Justice Ang iterated that the Majority decision of the Tribunal towards awarding the damages was simply for compensating Daichii Sankyo for the difference between the purchase price paid and the actual value of the Shares, and taking into account the dividends received and was not an award for loss of opportunity, and not an award for consequential damages. On the scope of setting aside the award on the ground of public policy, Justice Ang observed that the decision of the Majority in holding the Non-Management Sellers liable on the ground that the fraudulent misrepresentations made were within the apparent authority of their agents is in line with the position under Singapore law, and cannot be contrary to the public policy of the Singaporean Law.
Image Link: https://bit.ly/2QTH6hJ