Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 NOVEMBER 2017

Venture-Satyam Dispute Referred To Larger Bench Due To Differing Opinions

Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Contributor
Khaitan & Co.

Khaitan & Co.

Founded in 1911, Khaitan & Co is a heritage law firm that has been a trusted adviser to leading...

View firm profile
Explore more from Khaitan & Co.

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India differed in their ruling on the applicability of the confessional statement given by Mr Ramalinga Raju in the arbitration proceedings between Venture and Satyam.

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Ajay Bhargava
Ajay Bhargava
Aseem Chaturvedi
Aseem Chaturvedi
Sharngan Aravindakshan
Sharngan Aravindakshan
Author LinkedIn connections

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC), comprising Justice Chelameshwar and Justice Sapre, differed in their ruling on the applicability of the confessional statement given by Mr Ramalinga Raju, the Chairman and founder of the erstwhile Satyam Computer Services Limited, in the arbitration proceedings between Venture Global Engineering LLC (Venture) and Tech Mahindra Limited (Satyam).

Background

  • An arbitral award dated 3 April 2006 (the Award) was passed against Venture in an arbitration initiated by Satyam directing Venture to transfer its interest, i.e., 50% of the shares in a Joint Venture Company (JVC) to Satyam (the other shareholder holding 50%).
  • Thereafter, Venture filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court, Secunderabad which was transferred to the City Civil Court Hyderabad (Trial Court). Venture sought a declaration that the Award was illegal and without jurisdiction, and requested an injunction restraining Satyam from enforcing the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Decree Execution Under Order XXI CPC – An In-depth Insight

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the comprehensive framework for executing decrees in Indian civil litigation. This article examines the procedural mechanisms for decree execution, including filing execution petitions, methods of property attachment, and the legal processes for recovering money decrees through sale of attached assets.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act: What The Supreme Court’s New Procedural Guidelines Mean For Cheque-Bounce Cases

A cheque is supposed to offer something close to certainty in a commercial transaction. When a cheque is issued, the recipient ordinarily expects that it will be honoured when presented. A dishonoured cheque, therefore, is not merely a failed payment; it can have wider consequences for the credibility and discipline of commercial dealings.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Ministry Of Labour And Employment Operationalises The Provisions On Payment Of Statutory Bonus

On 25 August 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued two notifications (Notifications) under the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code), thereby operationalising specified provisions relating to payment of statutory bonus for establishments for which the appropriate government is the Central Government. The Wage Code consolidates the legislative framework governing wages and related employee entitlements, including the regime previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
IndiaEmployment and HR
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of SARFAESI Remedies For A Secured Creditor Who Acquires An NPA From A Non-notified NBFC

In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Trupti Sanjay Mehta and Others, 2026 INSC 943 (Kotak Mahindra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered whether a bank as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) could invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover a secured debt acquired from an entity which was not covered under the ambit of the SARFAESI Act at the time of disbursement of the loan.
IndiaFinance and Banking
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

DOT Notifies Telecom Network Authorisation Rules, 2026: What Has Changed?

On 20 July 2026, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) notified the Telecommunications (Authorisation for Telecommunication Network) Rules, 2026 (Rules). The Rules operationalise Section 3(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and establish a framework for six categories of telecommunication network authorisations: infrastructure provider (IP) (formerly, IP-I), digital connectivity infrastructure provider (DCIP), internet exchange point (IXP) provider, satellite earth station gateway (SESG) provider, cloud-hosted telecommunication network (CTN) provider and mobile number portability (MNP) provider.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.