IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
National Highways Authority Of India - Appellant
Versus
Panipat Jalandhar Nh-1 Tollway Private Limited - Respondent
Arb.A. (Comm.) 66 of 2021 and I.A. 15029 of 2021, Arb. A. (Comm.) 67 of 2021 and I.A. 15077-78 of 2021
Decided On : 18-09-2021
Parties executed Concession Agreement for 'Six-Laning of Panipat-Jalandhar Section of NH-1' which was later terminated by NHAI. PJNTPL's application under Section 17 of the Act was rejected. NHAI's application seeking modification of an earlier order was also decided. The court found that NHAI's exercise of power under Article 37 was legal and not arbitrary. The Tribunal held that the contract in question is in the nature of a commercial contract and cannot be enforced specifically. The court dismissed PJNTPL's challenge to the impugned order. NHAI's challenge to the impugned order was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral). - The present appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the cAcf] impugn the order of Arbitral Tribunal dated 24th August, 2021, whereby: (i) an application filed under Section 17 of the Act by the Claimant - i.e., Panipat Jalandhar NHAI Toll way Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as PJNTPL] has been dismissed; and (ii) a modification application filed by National Highways Authority of India [hereinafter referred to as 'NHAF] has been disposed of with certain directions merging into the order of interim measures, pending arbitration.
2. The facts of the case have been noted extensively by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, recounting the same all over again is neither necessary or useful for deciding the present appeals. It would suffice to summarize the controversy between the parties succinctly. The same is as follows:
2.1. Parties executed Concession Agreement dated 9th May, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as the 'C.A.'] in respect of 'Six-Laning of Panipat-Jalandhar Section of NH-1 From Km 96.00 to Km 387.10 (length of 291.10 Km) in the State of Haryana and Punjab to be executed as BOT (Toll) on DBFO Pattern under NHDC Phase-V', granted to PJNTPL by NHAI for a period of fifteen years.
2.2. Later, NHAI issued Notice to Cure on 13th October, 2020, followed by a Notice of Suspension dated 14th December, 2020 and finally by aTermination Notice dated 5th March, 2020, invoking the provisions and rights vested under Article 37 of the C.A. on the ground of non-curing of the defects as mentioned therein.
2.3. The aforesaid notices were impugned in a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which this very Court also had the occasion to deal with at the pre-reference stage. [1] In the said proceedings, initially, certain interim orders were passed.[2] Subsequently, in a challenge to an interim order, the Division bench dismissed the petition.[3] However, in an appeal before the Supreme Court, the petition was restored to the file of the court for fresh adjudication.[4] At that stage when this matter was heard by this Court,[5] taking note of the fact that an Arbitral Tribunal had been constituted, the petition under Section 9 was converted into one under Section 17 which was then directed to be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal.
[1] OMP (I) (COMM) 421/2020.
[2] Order dated 12th March 2021 in OMP (I) (COMM) 421/2020.
[3] Judgment dated 13th April 2021 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 55/2021.
[4] Order dated 27th April 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 1691 of 2021.
[5] Order dated 28th May, 2021 in OMP (I) (COMM) 421/2020.
2.4. Pursuant thereto, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an interim order on 1st June, 2021, making inter alia the following interim arrangement:
"3. It is ordered that so far as the order passed terminating the contract is concerned, the same would be subject to the final order passed on the Section 17 application. However, in the interregnum, and till the application under Section 17 is heard and disposed of, the collection of toll fee at the three toll plazas would be carried out by the Respondent by engaging M/s. Eagle Infra India Ltd. as an interim arrangement, which upon collection shall be deposited in the connected Escrow Account on actual collection basis. The representative of the Claimant would also be present in each of the toll plazas so as to ascertain the total collection made on each day in each of the toll plazas.
4. As the Respondent has been carrying out the operation and maintenance of the highway at present, which is required to be carried out under the Concession Agreement, a onetime withdrawal for meeting such expenses on maintenance will be permitted from the Escrow account which could be made by the Respondent but only upon certification of the the IC / Independent Engineer. The accounts thereof regarding the nature and amount of withdrawal shall be placed before this Tribunal for information and necessary action if any within a week from the da
Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Ltd.
Bharat Catering Corporation vs. IRCTC & Anr
Indian Oil Corporation vs. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors.
Jacob vs. Kerala Water Authority
The court found that the contract in question is in the nature of a commercial contract and cannot be enforced specifically under the Specific Relief Act. The Tribunal held that NHAI's exercise of po....
NHAI is contractually obliged to pay 90% of the Debt Due to lenders irrespective of defaults by the concessionaire, with no deductions permitted.
The court established that termination rights under a Concession Agreement are active concurrently with suspension rights, allowing for termination upon failure to cure defaults without requiring a w....
Concession Agreement - Termination/Suspension Notice - Article 36, it is required to mandatorily await lapse of 180 days before termination can occur or that once suspension has been invoked, termina....
The court affirmed that the Tribunal's rejection of the appellant's request for interim measures was valid due to established insufficient funding and non-compliance, affirming limited grounds for in....
The court determined that the petition for termination of the Concession Agreement by a non-party under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was beyond its scope, as it sought final relief rather than in....
If the Concessionaire is able to recover any amount from NHAI, PNB would be well within its right to seek attachment of the said proceeds or take such steps for recovery of the amount from the Conces....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the case of a determinable contract, no injunction against termination and enforcement of the contract can be issued.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.