J.CHELAMESWAR,J. - (1.) Leave granted in both the SLPs. 1.1. I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned brother Justice Sapre. While I agree with the conclusion recorded by him that the High Court erred in its conclusion on the question whether the proceedings initiated by VENTURE in OP No. 390 of 2008 are barred by the principle of "issue estoppel", I am unable to persuade myself to agree with his conclusions that the judgment under appeal is required to be reversed on the questions relating to public policy and fraud for the following reasons;
(2.) The facts of these appeals are narrated in great detail by my learned brother. There is no need to repeat except to mention those which are essential for the purpose of my conclusion.
(3.) An Arbitral Award dated 3rd April, 2006 (hereinafter the AWARD) came to be passed in an arbitration between VENTURE and SATYAM. 3.1. The relevant portion of the AWARD reads as under: "A. I order VGE to deliver to Satyam share certificates in form suitable for immediate transfer to Satyam or its designee evidencing all of VGE's ownership interest legal and/or beneficial in SVES. I further order it to do all that may otherwise be necessary to effect the transfer of such ownership to Satyam or its designee." ;