The Court of Appeal of Singapore on Thursday dismissed the appeal filed by former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder and Shivinder Singh (Singh brothers) against the Singapore High Court judgment refusing to set aside a 2016 arbitral award.
In December 2018, the High Court of Singapore upheld the Rs. 3,500 crore arbitral award passed in 2016 against the Singh brothers, in favour of Daiichi Sankyo Limited. The arbitral tribunal had found the ex-promoters guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and active concealment of material facts in relation to a 2008 deal with Japanese drugmaker Daiichi.
Also Read: No error in judgment holding Singh brothers guilty of contempt: Supreme Court dismisses the plea
Before the Court of Appeal, Daiichi Sankyo was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium. He was briefed by a team from P&A Law Offices comprising Anand Pathak, Amit Mishra, Mohit Singh, Samridhi Hota, Kanika Singhal. Shivam Pandey, and Turab Ali Kazmi. Pavan Bhushan, Hima Lawrence and Jayavrdhan Singh along with Singapore-based law firm Oon & Bazul LLP also briefed Subramanium.
Malvinder Singh was represented by Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo, who was briefed by WongPartnership LLP and DMD Advocates. Shivinder Singh was represented by Senior Counsel Narayanan Sreenivasan, briefed by K&L Gates Straits Law LLC.
The dispute arose when Daiichi purchased the entire shareholding of the Singh Brothers in Ranbaxy, which was worth Rs. 19,800 crore under a Share Purchase and Share Subscription Agreement (SPSSA) in June 2008. Immediately after the deal, in 2009, Daiichi discovered that the Singh Brothers made false representations to them by concealing a document known as the Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and also about the genesis, nature, and severity of pending investigations by the the United States Food and Drug Administration and Department of Justice against Ranbaxy.
Subramanium and Senior Counsel Harish Salve, who had appeared for the Singh brothers before the High Court, had been granted leave by the High Court of Singapore to appear and argue on certain aspects of Indian Law that were essential for the adjudication of the case. This was the first time that two senior counsel from India were granted leave to appear and argue in the High Court of Singapore.
Judge Quentin Loh dismissed all of the claims, holding,
“…Broad and general arguments based on unconscionability or potential repercussions of general fairness before a court will be given short shrift.”
Read the judgement here:
