JLT ENERGY 9SAS vs HINDUSTAN CLEANENERGY LIMITED & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:27.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 14/2026, CM APPL. 5068/2026, CM APPL. 5069/2026, CM APPL. 5070/2026 and CM APPL. 5071/2026 JLT ENERGY 9SAS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. V.P. Singh, Ms. Meherunissa Anand, Mr. Asif Ahmed, Ms. Shailja Rawal, Mr. Suneel Kumar and Ms. Khushi Mittal, Advs. versus HINDUSTAN CLEANENERGY LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Atul Shanker Mathur, Mr. Prabal Mehrotra, Mr. Shubhankar and Mr. Pallav Arora, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, the Appellant (Petitioner before the learned Single Judge) assails the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2026 [hereinafter referred to as 1 A&C Act Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:15.04.2026 FAO(OS)(COMM) 14/2026 Page 1 of 25 16:23:05 „Impugned Order‟], whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 92 of the A&C Act [hereinafter referred to as „Section 9 Petition‟], on the ground that non-fulfillment of Conditions Precedent („CPs‟) and Pre-Closing Actions(„PCAs‟) within the Share Purchase Agreements [hereinafter referred to as „SPAs‟] led to its termination, therefore, leaving no ground for its specific performance. 2. Herein, the Appellant contends that the learned Single Judge, dismissed the Section 9 Petition on the ground of termination of the SPAs. The learned Single Judge held that the Appellant failed to prove that the CP was successfully con