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) 1075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd - Appellant
Versus
IDBI Bank Limited & Anr. - Respondents
Original Miscellaneous Petition (COMM) No. 441 of 2020, I. A. No. 6079, 6766 of 2020
Decided On : 29-03-2022

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

The court held that the arbitral Tribunal's decision that HSIIDC had breached the Substitution agreement and that the Senior Lenders were entitled to damages was based on a plausible construction of the relevant clauses of the agreement and on a proper evaluation of the evidence. The court also held that the measure of damages adopted by the arbitral Tribunal, which was the entire amount claimed by the Senior Lenders as payable and outstanding by KMPEL, was not patently illegal or contrary to the public policy of India.

Headnote:

HSIIDC v. IDBI - Substitution Agreement - Breach of Contract - Measure of Damages - Arbitral Award Upheld - Public Policy of India - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Fact of the Case:

HSIIDC appointed IDBI as the Lenders' agent for a tripartite Substitution agreement with KMPEL, the Concessionaire for the KMP Expressway project. KMPEL defaulted on its loan obligations, leading IDBI to issue a Substitution Notice and appoint a Selectee to complete the project. HSIIDC, however, terminated the Concession agreement and awarded contracts to new Concessionaires without safeguarding the dues of the Senior Lenders. IDBI claimed damages for breach of the Substitution agreement, which the arbitral Tribunal awarded.

Finding of the Court:

The arbitral Tribunal found that HSIIDC had breached the Substitution agreement by failing to protect the Senior Lenders' dues and by not including a suitable condition for payment or takeover of such dues in the contracts with the new Concessionaires. The Tribunal also held that the toll collected from the KMP Expressway was a valuable security for the Senior Lenders and that depriving them of this revenue stream constituted a loss equivalent to the amount due to them.

Issues: 1. Whether HSIIDC breached the Substitution agreement by failing to protect the Senior Lenders' dues and by not including a suitable condition for payment or takeover of such dues in the contracts with the new Concessionaires? 2. Whether the toll collected from the KMP Expressway was a valuable security for the Senior Lenders and whether depriving them of this revenue stream constituted a loss equivalent to the amount due to them? 3. Whether the measure of damages adopted by the arbitral Tribunal was patently illegal or fell foul of the public policy of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the arbitral Tribunal's finding that HSIIDC had breached the Substitution agreement was based on a plausible construction of the relevant clauses of the agreement and on a proper evaluation of the evidence. The court also found that the Tribunal's conclusion that the toll collected from the KMP Expressway was a valuable security for the Senior Lenders was a reasonable one. 2. The court acknowledged that the measure of damages adopted by the arbitral Tribunal, which was the entire amount claimed by the Senior Lenders as payable and outstanding by KMPEL, was unconventional. However, the court held that this approach was not patently illegal or contrary to the public policy of India. The court reasoned that the value of the right of the Senior Lenders to receive part of the revenue generated from tolling of the KMP Expressway was a matter where the decision of the arbitral Tribunal must be accepted as final.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award. The court found that the arbitral Tribunal's decision was based on a plausible construction of the relevant clauses of the Substitution agreement and on a proper evaluation of the evidence. The court also held that the measure of damages adopted by the arbitral Tribunal was not patently illegal or contrary to the public policy of India.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - Introduction

1. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereafter 'HSIIDC') 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', against 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 tripartite Substitution agreement dated 08.01.2007 (hereafter the 'Substitution agreement') as HSIIDC had appointed Concessionaires after terminating the Concession in favour of respondent no.2 (hereafter 'KMPEL') to complete the development of the KMP Expressway, without safeguarding the dues of the Senior Lenders (represented by IDBI as the Lenders' agent). The arbitral Tribunal found in favour of IDBI and against HSIIDC and, awarded damages in favour of IDBI for a sum of Rs. 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 equivalent to the amount due to IDBI from KMP against the loan disbursed by IDBI (representative of the Senior Lenders), for the development of the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway (hereafter the 'KMP Expressway').

5. HSIIDC contends that the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality on the face of the award as HSIIDC had not incurred any liability towards IDBI. HSIIDC contends that it had entered into a Substitution agreement only to secure Senior Lenders (represented by IDBI) in respect of financial assistance extended by the Senior Lenders to the Concessionaire (KMPEL) for development of the KMP Expressway. It is contended on behalf of HSIIDC that although IDBI has instituted proceedings against KMPEL under The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions act, 1993, the arbitral Tribunal has in effect directed HSIIDC to pay the debt due from KMPEL, which is ex-facie erroneous.

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 45 days. The said period was subsequently extended. On 31.01.2006, KMPEL and HSIIDC entered into a Concession agreement for the aforesaid Project (hereafter the 'Consortium agreement'). The










                      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