Calcutta High Court has dismissed a batch of applications filed by Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd and its shareholders, which include former Sebi chairman M. Damodaran, seeking to submit affidavits of assets in ‘sealed cover’ in an arbitration award case.
On April 12, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur had passed an interim order asking Calcutta-based healthcare provider Glocal and its shareholders to file affidavits of their assets, liabilities and detailed list of litigations against them within two weeks in a case filed by UpHealth Inc of US.
UpHealth is locked in a commercial dispute over the ownership of Glocal, promoted by former bureaucrat Syed Sabahat Azim.
After receiving a ₹291 crore interim arbitral award in Chicago, the US-based company moved Calcutta HC under Section 9 of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 which extends interim protection to the applicant anytime after the declaration of the arbitral award but before it is enforced under Section 36 of the Act.
“The petitioners are all debtors or potential debtors. The entire rationale behind filing the affidavit of assets would be rendered meaningless if the affidavits were kept in sealed covers. In such circumstances, the prayers sought for are misconceived and untenable,” Justice Kapur said in his order on Tuesday.
Legal sources said documents presented in ‘sealed cover’ are only meant for the perusal of the judges. The other side in the case does not get access to such documents.
“The present application has been filed by the petitioners primarily on the apprehension that the exact details of their respective assets should not be made available since the same may be prone to misuse by third parties.
It is also alleged that the affidavit of assets contains confidential financial information and the petitioners may be ultimately prejudiced,” the order said.
Dismissing the petitions, the order further stated, “In compliance with the order dated April 12, 2024, the sealed covers are directed to be opened and the contents thereof first handed over to the advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent for inspection.”
