Singapore SC Disallowes Harish Salve to represent Ranbaxy Owners in Daiichi Case
NEW DELHI: The Singapore Supreme Court has disallowed senior advocate Harish Salve from appearing on behalf of corporate sellers of Ranbaxy against the case filed by the Daiichi Sankyo for not revealing risks involved in the buyout by Ranbaxy owners.
Earlier, the arbitration court in Singapore directed former promoters of Ranbaxy laboratories Ltd, Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh to pay damages worth Rs.2,562.78 crore to Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.
Daiichi had filed a case case against former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, where the Japanese firm stated that the Former Ranbaxy promoters had concealed relevant information while selling their majority stake to Daiichi in 2008.
The sellers are seeking to have the award either set aside or a reduction in the quantum, through the appeal. Daiichi, on the other hand, has applied to the court to have the award enforced.
Seeking permission for representing the Ranbaxy's case, Harish Salve has filed an application in Singapore Supreme Court. He also mentioned his ample experience in this field to argue for an exception to be made in this case as he has been appeared earlier for the brothers in the Delhi High Court.
On February 17, 2017 the Singapore court has rejected salve's application for appearing in the Singapore court. The Singapore Court has given reasons for not allowing him against the said case. The court said, that no questions of Indian law were involved at this stage. Even at an earlier stage when issues related to the Indian law had arisen, the sellers had employed senior counsel from Singapore, the court noted, and only led evidence from Indian law experts to defend their cases, reports ET
According to the Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act of Singapore, which contains the conditions that need to be fulfilled before a foreign lawyer is admitted to argue, reports Bar & Bench. Among those conditions is that the applicant should be a Queen’s Counsel, or have an equivalent distinction. “Special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case” also needs to be established. In view of this provision, the court held,
“The overarching principle guiding the exercise of the court’s discretion is that foreign senior counsel should only be admitted on the basis of “need”. “Need” should be assessed not only from the perspective of the litigant but also with regard to the court’s need for assistance with the issues in contention.”
The court further stated that foreign lawyers could be allowed in specific cases, but observed the party seeking to engage them has to first prove that such law was involved in the case, before pressing for counsel from that country.
Read also: Daiichi Sankyo closes RnD Division in India