SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
M/s Kmp Expressways Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
IDBI Bank Limited & Anr. - Respondents
Original Miscellaneous Petition (COMM) No. 35 of 2021, I. A. No. 1165 of 2021
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Pallav Shishodia, Advocate, Deepak Khurana, Advocate, Tejasv Anand, Advocate, Gopal Jain, Advocate, Raunak Dhillon, Advocate, Madhavi Khanna, Advocate, Isha Malik, Advocate, Niharika Shukla, Advocate, Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate, Anil Grover, Advocate, Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate, Nitin Jain, Advocate

The measure of damages adopted by the arbitral Tribunal and its influence on the decision.

Headnote:

arbitration - KMP Expressways Limited - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 34) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 34) - The court discussed the Substitution agreement dated 08.01.2007, Concession agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties under these agreements. The court also highlighted the measure of damages adopted by the arbitral Tribunal and its influence on the decision.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between KMP Expressways Limited (KMPEL), IDBI, and HSIIDC regarding the breach of obligations under the Substitution agreement and the Concession agreement. The arbitral Tribunal awarded damages in favor of IDBI for a sum of ?1737.11 crores along with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned award. KMPEL challenged the award on the grounds of costs and recovery of amounts by IDBI from KMPEL.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned award was not vitiated by patent illegality and dismissed KMPEL's petition. The court also clarified that the impugned award did not prejudice KMPEL's right to pursue its claims against HSIIDC in respect of the Concession agreement.

Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the impugned award by KMPEL, including the award of costs and the direction for recovery of amounts by IDBI from KMPEL.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned award was not vitiated by patent illegality and that it did not prejudice KMPEL's right to pursue its claims against HSIIDC in respect of the Concession agreement.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - Introduction

1. KMP Expressways Limited (hereafter 'KMPEL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 (hereafter the 'a&C act') impugning an arbitral award dated 24.03.2020 (hereafter the 'impugned award') delivered by an arbitral Tribunal comprising of two former Judges of the Supreme Court of India with a Former Chief Justice of India acting as a Presiding arbitrator (hereafter the 'arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of claims made by respondent no.1 (hereafter 'IDBI') on its behalf as well as on behalf of the 'Senior Lenders' as the 'Lenders' Representative', against respondent no. 2 (hereafter 'HSIIDC'). In this order, a reference to IDBI unless the context indicates otherwise, be construed as referring to the 'Senior Lenders' or to IDBI acting as the 'Lender's Representative'.

3. IDBI claimed that HSIIDC had breached its obligations under the Substitution agreement dated 08.01.2007 (hereafter the 'Substitution agreement') as HSIIDC had appointed new Concessionaires in place of KMPEL to complete the development of the KMP Expressway, without safeguarding its dues and those of the 'Senior Lenders'. The arbitral Tribunal found in favour of IDBI and against HSIIDC and, awarded damages in favour of IDBI for a sum of ?1737.11 crores along with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned award. The arbitral Tribunal further found that HSIIDC would be entitled to reimbursement of the amount that IDBI would recover from KMPEL pursuant to the proceedings instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, IDBI would be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the recovered amount if the same is not paid to HSIIDC within one month from the date of recovery of such amount.

4. The arbitral Tribunal had quantified the aforesaid damages to be equivalent to the amount due to IDBI and the 'Senior Lenders' from KMPEL against the loan disbursed by IDBI, for the development of the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway (hereafter the 'KMP Expressway').

5. KMPEL has challenged the operative part of the impugned award to extent that (i) it directs that the KMPEL shall bear its own costs; and (ii) it contemplates recovery of any amount by IDBI from KMPEL in proceedings instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and directs reimbursement of the said amount to HSIIDC. according to KMPEL, the impugned award to the aforesaid extent is vitiated by patent illegality.

Factual Context

6. The Government of Haryana had appointed HSIIDC as the Nodal agency for Development of 135.650 km long KMP Expressway in the State of Haryana and its operation and maintenance, on a Build, Operate and Transfer basis (BoT basis).

7. HSIIDC had invited proposals for the development and operation of KMP Expressway on a BoT basis (hereafter the 'Project'). Pursuant to the said invitation, M/s Madhucon Projects Limited, M/s apollo Enterprises Limited and M/s D.S. Constructions Limited had submitted their bid as a Consortium with M/s Madhucon Projects Limited as the Consortium Leader. The said bid was accepted and, HSIIDC issued a Letter of acceptance (hereafter the 'LOa') dated 14.11.2005 requiring execution of a Concession agreement within a period of forty-five days. The said period was subsequently extended. The Consortium promoted and incorporated KMPEL (petitioner) as a Special Purpose Vehicle for developing and operating the KMP Expressway under the Concession agreement.

8. In terms of the Concession agreement, KMPEL was required to make definite arrangements for financing the Project including by financial assistance from Senior Lenders by way of loans, guarantees, subscription to non-convertible debentures and other debt instruments. KMPEL was required to furnish Financing Documents to secure funding from the Senior Lenders within a maximum period of two hundred and seventy days (270 days) from the date of

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top