Amrapali case: SC puts on hold arbitration pleas by Dhoni, others

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold the arbitration proceedings against Amrapali Group initiated by former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and a construction firm pending consideration of the issue by the top court on August 8

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold the arbitration proceedings against Amrapali Group initiated by former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and a construction firm pending consideration of the issue by the top court on August 8.

The Supreme Court of India. (File Photo)

Both Dhoni and ST Constructions Private Limited had filed separate arbitration petitions in the Delhi high court in 2019 and 2017, respectively on which orders were passed appointing arbitrators. Both cases were related to unpaid dues of contractual payments. While retired Supreme Court judge BS Chauhan was hearing the arbitration filed by ST Constructions against Amrapali’s Princely Estate project, Dhoni’s case was being dealt by retired Delhi high court judge Veena Birbal.

The bench of justices UU Lalit and Bela M Trivedi issued notice to Dhoni as well as the company. Posting the matter for August 8, the bench said, “At this stage, we request the arbitrators to hold their hand till the matter is disposed by this court.” The court directed that a copy of its order should be placed before the two arbitrators.

As the two proceedings concerned with recovery of sums from Amrapali, the court-appointed receiver, senior advocate R Venkatramani informed the court about the pending arbitration disputes that could affect his efforts to mobilise funds for completion of Amrapali projects. He sought orders from the court to put the two matters in abeyance till the matter pertaining to completion of Amrapali projects is completed. In one of the cases, the matter was listed before the arbitrator on Wednesday.

The bench told Venkatramani, “We cannot pass a general order staying the proceedings without hearing the other side.” Venkatramani informed the bench that there was also a question of who should represent Amrapali in the arbitration dispute as he was appointed by the top court for the limited purpose of ensuring completion of Amrapali projects, being executed by the National Building Construction Corporation (NBCC).

“The arbitrators will understand this is not a normal liquidation proceeding. Court Receiver has not taken liability of erstwhile owners. He is there to manage the properties for the benefit of homebuyers. Theoretically, it is not insolvency proceedings that rights and liabilities are getting centered there. Even for seeking their clarification, we need to issue notice,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court had in July 2019 suspended the real estate firm’s license under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 upon a forensic audit which found large scale diversion of homebuyers’ money. Following the SC order, the Directors of Amrapali are facing criminal proceedings for alleged money laundering.

The same year, Dhoni filed a petition in the Delhi high court for recovery of unpaid dues from Amrapali as per his professional contract signed with the erstwhile directors of Amrapali. As per the forensic audit of Amrapali, 24 contracts were signed by Amrapali and Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited, the firm that managed Dhoni’s contracts, between 2009 and 2015.

Rhiti Sports entered into an agreement with Amrapali on behalf of Dhoni in November 2009 for approximately ₹16 crore. The agreement required Dhoni to endorse Amrapali as its brand ambassador. However, this money was never paid and Dhoni as he claimed a sum of approximately ₹39 crore with interest from Amrapali.

Besides, Dhoni also signed a joint venture agreement with Amrapali Housing on June 14, 2011. As part of the agreement, Dhoni agreed to invest ₹25 crore as initial capital in the housing project in lieu of which he was promised a return of ₹75 crore. Despite Dhoni fulfilling his part of the contract, Amrapali only paid him an amount of ₹10 lakh as the remaining cheques issued by the company got bounced.