Subscribe for perks & to support LI

Your Interests & Preferences: Personalise your reading

Which best describes your role and/or interests?

I work in a law firm
I work for a company / in-house
I'm a litigator at the bar
I'm a law student
Aspiring law student
Other
Save setting
Or click here to show more preferences...

I am interested in the following types of stories (uncheck to hide from frontpage)

Firms / In-House
Deals
Courts
Legal Education

Always show me: (overrides the above)

Exclusives & Editor's Picks

Website Look & Feel

Light Text on Dark Background

Save preferences


Note: Your preferences will be saved in your browser. You can always change your settings by clicking the Your Preferences button at the top of every page.

Reset preferences to defaults?

P&A, Gopal win Delhi HC support of Rs 3,500 cr Singapore ICC arbitration for Daiichi Sankyo vs DMD, Salve for Ranbaxy promoters

“The Delhi High Court has allowed Daiichi Sankyo to enforce an international arbitration award here so that it can recover Rs 3,500 crore from former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh, marking a victory for the Japanese company. A Singapore tribunal had said the brothers needed to pay the money for concealing information related to wrongdoing at Ranbaxy, once India's largest drug maker, when Daiichi acquired it from the brothers for $4.6 billion in 2008,” reported the Economic Times.

P&A Law Offices acted for Daiichi Sankyo, led by managing partner Anand S Pathak, partner Amit Kumar Mishra, principal associate Akshat Hansaria, senior associates Abhijeet Sinha and Mohit Singh and associates Akshay Puri and Samridhi Hota. Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, Arvind Nigam and Arun Kathpalia argued before the court.

DMD Advocates senior partner Anuradha Dutt acted for the Singh brothers, instructing senior advocate Harish Salve.

Before the Singapore ICC tribunal, Daiichi had nominated Karyl Nairn QC as arbitrator, while Malvinder Singh had nominated AM Ahmadi, a former Chief Justice of India; the ICC had appointed Professor Lawrence Boo of The Arbitration Chambers, Singapore as president of the arbitral tribunal, which had handed down its in April 2016.

The enforcement of the award had been appealed later in 2016 in the Delhi high court.

The high court heard the parties over six months and reserved judgment in September 2017. In a 115 page verdict pronounced on 31 January 2018 the court noted:

Based on the evidence on record the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that at the time of due diligence meeting that took place on 26.5.2008 it was beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.Malvinder, Mr. Kaul and Mr.Deshmukh were aware about SAR and believed that it had triggered both the US investigations and that Ranbaxy was very seriously exposed… The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.Malvinder, Mr.Kaul and Mr.Deshmukh acted fraudulently and dishonestly misleading the petitioner/claimant [Daiichi Sankyo] about the genesis, nature and severity of the US Regulatory investigations and deliberately concealed SAR from the claimants [Daiichi Sankyo].

Click to show 32 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Like +11 Object -3 Congratulations 06 Feb 18, 16:55  interesting
Congratulations Team P&A. A sweet victory finally. All the best for the SC appeal, if any.
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +2 Object -1 Prakash Jha 07 Feb 18, 10:29
Amit Mishra is a (secret) superstar! Way to go Amit...
Reply Report to LI
2.1
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 Insider 07 Feb 18, 15:26
Indeed. The last man surviving in P&A.
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Cactus 08 Feb 18, 16:21
Ever wonder what does 'A' stand for in 'P&A'....yeah you guessed it right....The Last Man - because of whom P&A is surviving. You are surely no insider...!!!
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -1 Annn 08 Feb 18, 18:14
A is for Associates.
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Whaaat 08 Feb 18, 20:36
What happened to Nitin Wadhwa and Anil Kumar ?
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1.2...
Like +5 Object -0 Not so inside scoop 09 Feb 18, 10:18  interesting
Nithin Wadwa has started his own firm in Gurgaon. Anil Kumar still seems to be there.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Insider 07 Feb 18, 10:30
Is Abhijeet Sinha back in P&A ?
Reply Report to LI
3.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Annon 07 Feb 18, 11:23
Seems like.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Insider 07 Feb 18, 15:26
Strange. I was last told that he joined SAM and then went independent.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Hey 07 Feb 18, 16:26
However, considering his knowledge,hard work and never give up attitude, he was invited back to spearhead the litigation and anti-trust dispute practice under Amit Mishra. In few years, he will overtake others and lead the practice. All the best Abhijeet.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1.1...
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Annon 07 Feb 18, 18:27
He was not invited. He quit SAM in less than 2 years to join a Counsel for a few months and then rejoined P&A, but not to 'spearhead' anything. Why he quit (we ll assume he quit) is unknown. And Amit Mishra does not do anti trust dispute. Akshay Nanda does that.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Sock puppetry 07 Feb 18, 18:36
It's him , him and only him.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Babur 08 Feb 18, 10:42
While people may keep squabbling....fact remains.....Amit Mishra rules the roost in P&A. Rest are all pocket change and, hence, expendable.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Law2 08 Feb 18, 15:42
It's Anand Pathak who rules. Thats it. Amit Mishra is a salaried Partner, which makes him pocket change too.
Reply Report to LI
3.1.1.1...
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Hey you!! 09 Feb 18, 11:36
Ghanta!
Reply Report to LI
4
Like +8 Object -0 CID v. Rajnikanth 07 Feb 18, 17:28  interesting
Last time I heard, he was the brain behind Elon Musk's SpaceX.
Then designed a new planet for peaceful habitation of humans after Earth. And was further involved in drafting of constitution and competition law for the same planet.
Reply Report to LI
5
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Moral policing 07 Feb 18, 18:41
Well you don't have your name up here, kindly refrain from such comments.
Reply Report to LI
6
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 True Insider 07 Feb 18, 19:43
The star man is obviously Akshay Nanda. He is my hero.
Reply Report to LI
7
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Let Down 08 Feb 18, 12:54
Does anyone know which Indian law firm had advised Daiichi Sankyo when they entered into a purchase agreement with the Ranbaxy promoters?
Reply Report to LI
7.1
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Annn 08 Feb 18, 15:44
Does that mean they messed up the due diligence and made hay out of it too?
Reply Report to LI
7.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 The Defender 08 Feb 18, 17:12
Like to know one thing from you the name of Indian law firms which undertake technical diligence such as confirming compliance of pharma products under US FDA requirements.
Reply Report to LI
7.1.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Annn 09 Feb 18, 00:36
Indian law firms should not be advising on US law / compliance requirements in the first place.
Reply Report to LI
8
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 The Best 08 Feb 18, 14:27
It was P&A and seems like they defended claims arising from the agreement very well. Imagine 1000 crores in interest and legal costs.
Reply Report to LI
8.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 friends 08 Feb 18, 16:08
When Jones Day and P&A were friends....
Reply Report to LI
8.2
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Law2 08 Feb 18, 18:19
Daiichi was the Claimant. The promoters were the Respondents. Get your facts right.
Reply Report to LI
9
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Law Degree 08 Feb 18, 20:35
And Respondents can never have claims against which a Claimant can defend !!! Buddy get your law degree right.
Reply Report to LI
9.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Insider 08 Feb 18, 23:26
In this case there was no counter claim to defend.
Reply Report to LI
9.1.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Insider 09 Feb 18, 10:46
This was a challenge before the High Court, not a counter claim. If you are a lawyer, you should go back to law school. Or better still, quit law altogether and do the society a favour.
Reply Report to LI
10
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Read between the lines 09 Feb 18, 14:31
So as per your enlightened brains, responding to a challenge is not defending claims arising from the agreement. Understand the difference between counter claim and defending a claim. Do us a favour become a mindless secretary.
Reply Report to LI


Latest comments