Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Overnite Express Limited - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation - Respondent
Original Miscellaneous Petition (I) (Comm) No. 254 of 2019, 255 of 2019, 256 of 2019, 257 of 2019; Interlocutory Application No. 15456 of 2019, 15460 of 2019, 15481 of 2019, 15451 of 2019, 15479 of 2019, 15483 of 2019, 15452 of 2019, 15480 of 2019, 15484 of 2019, 2050 of 2020, 2079 of 2020, 15453 of 2019, 15482 of 2019, 15485 of 2019
Decided On : 12-06-2020
Court held that the License Agreements between the parties were by their very nature determinable and thus, in view of Section 14(1)(c) read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the judgments on the subject, the grant of injunction as sought by the Petitioner was statutorily prohibited.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was declared successful for all four Scheduled Areas along with the tender document fee and Rs. 48,78,000/- towards refundable Security Deposit. Being the highest bidder, Petitioner was declared successful for all the four Areas. Petitioner deposited the advance rental for a period of 12 months for each of the Schedule Areas, totaling to an amount of Rs. 6,35,06,937/-. On 22.10.2018, separate Letters of Acceptance were issued by the Respondent with respect to the four Areas and the Petitioner deposited the advance rental for a period of 12 months for each of the Schedule Areas, totaling to an amount of Rs. 6,35,06,937/-. On 04.02.2019, four License Agreements were executed for each of the Areas respectively and were Registered on 26.04.2019 in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Petitioner also noticed substantial difference in the measurement of the Area in Schedule-II. As per the Petitioner, correspondence was subsequently exchanged between the parties and a meeting took place and the Respondent all through assured that deficiencies would be rectified. Petitioner submitted the layout plans and drawings on 30.05.2019 regarding the existing spaces and also sent several reminders thereafter to take necessary action to restore the premises for use by the Petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
Court held that the License Agreements between the parties were by their very nature determinable and thus, in view of Section 14(1)(c) read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the judgments on the subject, the grant of injunction as sought by the Petitioner was statutorily prohibited.
Issues: Whether the License Agreements between the parties were by their very nature determinable and thus, in view of Section 14(1)(c) read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the judgments on the subject, the grant of injunction as sought by the Petitioner was statutorily prohibited.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that the License Agreements between the parties were by their very nature determinable and thus, in view of Section 14(1)(c) read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the judgments on the subject, the grant of injunction as sought by the Petitioner was statutorily prohibited.
Final Decision: Petitions are accordingly dismissed and interim order dated 06.09.2019 is hereby vacated. Pending applications also stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present petitions have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') seeking direction to the Respondent to handover the licensed area on ''as is where is basis'' i.e. restore the licensed Areas in Schedule-I to Schedule IV respectively, to the pre-bid status including reinstallation of power, cables etc. Relief is also sought for injuncting the Respondent from raising invoices or any other amount towards the license fee upto 180 days after handing over the licensed areas as well as to make the elevators, escalators and other utilities functional. Petitioner also seeks restraint against the Respondent from taking any coercive steps under the 4 License Agreements all dated 04.02.2019. Since, the petitions raise common questions of fact and law, they are being decided by a common judgment.
2. The brief facts as set out by the Petitioner are that the Respondent Corporation on 09.07.2018 invited open bids by E-tender for licensing of commercial space/area on different floors/levels at New Delhi Metro Station of Delhi Airport Express Line of DMRC network (referred to as ''Areas'' hereinafter) on ''as is where is basis''.
3. The Areas were sub-classified under the following four Schedules with approximate proposed areas:-
| S. No. | Schedule | Floor/Level | Approx. Proposed Area |
| 1. | Schedule-I | First Floor/Level | 624 sq. mtr. |
| 2. | Schedule-II | Ground Floor/Level | 868 sq. mtr. |
| 3. | Schedule-III | Concourse Floor/Level | 1535 sq. mtr. |
| 4. | Schedule-IV | Concourse Floor/Level | 1522 sq.mtr. |
License for areas under Schedule-I and II was for a period of 21 years and for Schedule-III and IV was for 24 years. The Areas under the open E-tender could be used by successful bidder to use, develop, manage, promote, operate or sub-license the same for any commercial usage, except those specifically prohibited.
4. In order to enable the prospective bidders to formulate their bid by examining the Areas, the infrastructure and facilities available, the Etender provided for a pre-bid site inspection and survey. Respondent provided the site visit of the Areas on 19.07.2018. During the visit, the bidders including the representatives of the Petitioner requested for taking photographs/videography of the floors/levels in order to record the condition, status and facilities existing at the site, before formulating the bids, but the same was not permitted by the Respondent citing security reasons.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that at the time of the site visit, it was found that there were bare-shell/ partly constructed 20 units/outlets and five halls at the Concourse level which could be used for retail outlets and food court with common sitting areas or any other commercial purpose. The following facilities, fixtures and fittings in good working condition were found:-
"(i) White false ceiling in good condition with adequate number of functional LED lights in the entire Concourse Floor/Level as well as the common areas and the areas were well lightened.
(ii) Each unit/ outlet was having individual isolators/MCCBs and power cables for electricity to each unit/ outlet.
(iii) Each unit/ outlet was having separate water inlet.
(iv) Each unit/ outlet was having chill water pipelines/ tapping for air-conditioning along with ceiling suspended AHU for air-conditioning in the sitting area except the double heighted area in Schedule IV and the portion near AFC Gates. The common areas were also duly airconditioned.
(v) Each unit/ outlet was having fresh air ducting for ventilation and smoke extraction system.
(vi) Each unit/ outlet
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
