Boortmalt N.V. – A Belgian malt manufacturing company in various court-proceedings arising out of their collaboration with an Indian party.
Louis Berger Group – Before Delhi High Court in a dispute related to Road Construction where Louis Berger was appointed as an independent consultant by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI.)
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways – On the question of law and interpretation of the Constitution of India in a writ jurisdiction before the High Court of Karnataka and its benches.
Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAPL) – our client filed Company Application in Karnataka High court seeking leave of the court to permit disposing-off the assets that belonged to Kingfisher Airlines Limited lying at Mumbai International airport occupying an extent of about 6500 Sq. ft. When the application was taken up, counsel for SBI, the Lead Consortium and Official Liquidator strongly opposed our application stating that they have the rights and powers to decide what to do with saidassets and even disposal thereof. The court allowed our client MIAPL to sell the assets of Kingfisher airlines lying at theirpremises by way of public auction and also granted MIAPL’s request to recover expenses related to auction from the sale proceeds.
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) – Against Obedullaganj Betul Tollways Pvt. Ltd. in dispute worth US$ 105 million (Rs`700 crore) pertaining to a Concession Agreement and the Common Loan Agreement in State of Madhya Pradesh for ‘Four Laning of Obedullaganj-Betul Section of NH-69 on BOT (Toll) Project basis. Represented before the Delhi High Court in a writ petition NHAI filed by a Bidder, an important issue related to rejection of Application for pre-qualification (RFAQ) by NHAI was held to be justified. The RFAQ was rejected on the ground that the Contract of Associate Company of Applicant with NHAI was terminated. The contention of the Applicant that such rejection of RFAQ would amount to blacklisting of the Company was out rightly rejected. The High Court agreed with our arguments that disqualification in terms of Clause 2.2.7 of RFAQ was justified. In terms of Clause 2.2.7, the condition of ineligibility was attracted as the Associate Company of the Applicant was expelled by NHAI which would be a “public entity” as mentioned in the said clause. The High Court rejected the contention of the Petitioner that NHAI would not fall within the definition of any“public entity”.
State Bank of India(SBI) – Before the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement at Bangalore filed a complaint seeking confirmation of provisional attachment order issued earlier on some of the properties on which charges were created in favour of SBI, on the ground that the said properties were acquired out of “proceeds of crime.”