© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] FCA 1346
Federal Court of Australia
2009-10-30
Rares J
Original judgment source is linked above.
PENAL NOTICE TO: RAJAGOPALAN SRIDHAR IF YOU: (A) REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO ANY ACT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER FOR THE DOING OF THE ACT; OR (B) DISOBEY THE ORDER BY DOING AN ACT WHICH THE ORDER REQUIRES YOU TO ABSTAIN FROM DOING, YOU WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY OR OTHER PUNISHMENT. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS YOU TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE SIMILARLY PUNISHED. TO: RAJAGOPALAN SRIDHAR This is a 'freezing order' made against you on 30 October 2009 by Justice Rares at a hearing without notice to you after the Court was given the undertakings set out in Schedule A to this order and after the Court read the affidavits listed in Schedule B to this order. THE COURT ORDERS: INTRODUCTION
SCHEDULE A UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO THE COURT BY THE SUZLON PARTIES (1) The Suzlon Parties undertake to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation (to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct) to any person (whether or not a party) affected by the operation of the order. (2) As soon as practicable, the Suzlon Parties will file and serve upon the respondent copies of: (a) this order; (b) the application for this order for hearing on the return date; (c) the following material in so far as it was relied on by the Suzlon Parties at the hearing when the order was made: (i) affidavits (or draft affidavits); (ii) exhibits capable of being copied; (iii) any written submission; and (iv) any other document that was provided to the Court. (d) a transcript, or, if none is available, a note, of any exclusively oral allegation of fact that was made and of any exclusively oral submission that was put, to the Court; (e) the originating process, or, if none was filed, any draft originating process produced to the Court. (3) As soon as practicable, the Suzlon Parties will cause anyone notified of this order to be given a copy of it. (4) The Suzlon Parties will pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the respondent which have been incurred as a result of this order, including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the respondent's assets. (5) If this order ceases to have effect the Suzlon Parties will promptly take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone to who has been notified of this order, or who he has reasonable grounds for supposing may act upon this order, that it has ceased to have effect. (6) The Suzlon Parties will not, without leave of the Court, use any information obtained as a result of this order for the purpose of any civil or criminal proceedings, either in or outside Australia, other than this proceeding. (7) The Suzlon Parties will not, without leave of the Court, seek to enforce this order in any country outside Australia or seek in any country outside Australia an order of a similar nature or an order conferring a charge or other security against the respondent or the respondent's assets.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave be granted to the Suzlon Parties to file in the court a copy of the affidavit of Prafull Wankhade affirmed 28 October 2009 2. Leave be granted to the Suzlon Parties to issue a subpoena in the form initialled by Rares J dated today. 3. The proceedings stand over to 20 November 2009 at 9:30am. 4. Leave be granted to any party to apply on two days notice. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
general division NSD 1670 of 2008
BETWEEN: BELUGA SHIPPING GMBH & CO. KS "BELUGA FANTASTIC"
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT) 1 When these proceedings came before me on 31 July 2009 I indicated that I was prepared to make a Mareva or freezing order against Mr Sridhar. I settled the form of those orders in chambers and made them on 13 August 2009, giving reasons for making them on 18 September 2009: Beluga Shipping GmbH v Suzlon Energy Limited [2009] FCA 1020. When the matter came before me on the latter date, the solicitor for the Suzlon parties overlooked seeking an extension of the freezing orders and accordingly they expired later that day. Mr Sridhar was served with the orders and documents commencing these proceedings against him later that day in India. 2 The oversight was unfortunate and unintended. I am satisfied on the material presently before me that no prejudice has been suffered by Mr Sridhar through it having occurred. The matter came before me on 23 October 2009, when the oversight was realised by the legal representatives of the Suzlon parties. Pursuant to leave I gave, they filed a motion returnable today to seek further freezing orders against Mr Sridhar. I directed that those draft orders be prepared so as to comply with Practice Note CM 9 issued by the Chief Justice on 25 September 2009. Having regard to the material on which I relied for the purposes of making my orders of 13 August 2009, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make orders in terms of the form of freezing orders that I will shortly pronounce upon the undertakings offered by the Suzlon parties. 3 The Suzlon parties have disclosed that since 18 September 2009, Mr Sridhar has been and remained in what is described as magisterial custody, that is, custody pursuant to an order of a magistrate in Pune, in the State of Maharashtra, in India. He is apparently permitted contact with family and legal advisers twice a week and additional contact when he has permission from the gaol authorities. On the material before me, identified in the schedule to the freezing order, I am satisfied that for the reasons I gave in Beluga [2009] FCA 1020, that I should make a further set of freezing orders, subject to the conditions in Practice Note CM 9, and adapted as I have considered appropriate. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.
Associate: Dated: 18 November 2009 Counsel for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Second Cross Claimants AW Street SC and J Hogan-Doran
Solicitor for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Second Cross Claimants HWL Ebsworth
Beluga Shipping GmbH
Suzlon Energy Ltd