Former Ranbaxy owners Malvinder and Shivinder Singh claims on Daiichi for availing Monetary benefits of Rs. 8000 crore, Daiichi reacts by saying Singh brothers commits perjury during proceedings of its ongoing arbitration enforcement case.
NEW DELHI: Moving ahead in the battle, the Former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder and Shivinder Singh in its application in Delhi High Court have claimed on the Japanese firm Daiichi Sankyo by saying that Daiichi has availed Rs. 8000 crore by during the time it bought and sold Ranbaxy.
Medical Dialogues team had earlier reported that last year the Singapore tribunal court directed the former Ranbaxy owners to award Rs. Rs.2,562.78 crore to Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd for concealing information regarding wrongdoing at Ranbaxy while selling it to Daiichi Sankyo, after that the Ex Ranbaxy owners appealed this award in both the Delhi High Court as well as in Singapore.
The brothers have now claimed to court that Daiichi had recovered Rs. 8000 crore monetary benefits earlier at the time Daiichi bought and sold Ranbaxy.Daiichi further made a profit on the sale of its shares in Ranbaxy to Sun Pharma in 2015, the application adds.
Such monetary benefits should have been factored in by the Singapore arbitral tribunal in assessing the damages, it further suggests. The tribunal allowed itself to be misled, in that while it accepted that the value of all benefits derived were liable to be reduced from the alleged “loss” incurred by Daiichi, it ignored the benefit derived from tax deductions that became available on account of “impairment in value,” states the application, reports ET.
In its last application, Daiichi requested the Delhi High Court to block the former Ranbaxy owners Malvinder and Shivinder Singh’s to sell any of their stakes in Fortis Healthcare and allied subsidiaries. The Japanese firm also alleged that the Singh brothers have not obeyed the court’s order as it had directed them to submit the details of their assets value that can be considered during the award’s enforcement trial.
“Arbitral awards are in proceedings that are conducted in good faith, and an award obtained by suppressing vital material within the knowledge of a party is an award obtained by fraud,” the application stated.
In view of Ranbaxy’s application regarding Daiichi’s profit, the Delhi High Court has directed the direct the Japanese firm to “disclose all monetary benefits availed, directly and/or indirectly, through its tax filings, arising out of and/or related to and/or in connection with its purchase of shareholding interests in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited.”
While in reply of Daiichi’s application, Daiichi Sankyo has alleged that the brothers have committed perjury during proceedings of its ongoing arbitration enforcement case.
Daiichi’s counsel, CA Sundaram, alleged that the Singhs made false statements in affidavits about unencumbered assets of RHC Holding as the values of the company’s unencumbered assets and investments were different from what it had disclosed in previous affidavits.
On the other hand, the Singh brothers have denied the Daiichi’s statement and said they obeyed the Court’s order to disclose the total assets value and they have not made any false statements in affidavits about unencumbered assets of RHC Holding.
An spokesperson of RHC holding stated that “All orders of the honourable court have been complied with. The discrepancy as alleged by Daiichi is due to their lack of understanding. There is no discrepancy or false statements as alleged. These are tactics being used to delay the hearing of the main matter now scheduled for March 27, 2017, reports ET.
Harish Salve, counsel for the Singh’s and other respondents, said the difference in the value of the unencumbered assets in the affidavits and the auditor’s certificate was because they were submitted on different dates and were affected by a change in market rates.
In order to clear the Daiichi statement against Ex Ranbaxy owners regarding the false statements in affidavits about unencumbered assets of RHC Holding, Daiichi’s Counsel Sundaram requested the court to prevent the 19 respondents in this case from parting with their assets to secure the company’s award amount once again.
The issue will be taken up next Monday.