IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Allahabad Bypass Pathways Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
National Highways Authority of India & Anr. – Respondents
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 27 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2023
The petitioner filed a petition seeking urgent interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to restrain respondent No. 1 from taking coercive action or claiming sums of money without first adjudicating upon the approved set-off claims. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 raised a demand in violation of the Concession Agreement and may initiate coercive actions, causing irreparable loss. The court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the adjudication of the application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought urgent interim relief to restrain respondent No. 1 from taking coercive action or claiming sums of money without first adjudicating upon the approved set-off claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the adjudication of the application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Issues: Urgent interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, violation of the Concession Agreement, potential coercive actions causing irreparable loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to maintain status quo till the adjudication of the application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction for the parties to maintain status quo till the adjudication of the application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. No. 1997/2023 and 1998/2023
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM) 27/2023
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") seeking urgent interim relief to restrain respondent No. 1 from taking any coercive action in view of its final notice dated 10th January, 2023 or claiming any sums of money from the petitioner herein towards alleged Concession Fee, without first adjudicating upon/ considering the approved set-off claims made by the petitioner with respondent No. 1 in respect of the construction / development of the Competing Road claims, which have been pending as undecided for three years.
2. Mr. Akhil Sibbal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 76, Mall Road, Mhow - 453441, Madhya Pradesh, India.
3. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 is a statutory body established under the National Highways Authority Act, 1988 and respondent No. 2 is the Independent Engineer appointed by respondent No. 1, in terms of the Concession Agreement.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a Concession Agreement dated 17th December, 2013 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 with respect to operation and maintenance of Allahabad Bypass (inclusive of the Ganga Bridge Package ABP-1) from Km. 158.00 to Km. 242.708 of NH-2 on OMT basis in State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that the commercial operation date of the said project was achieved on 25th April, 2014.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in accordance with Article 21 of the said agreement the petitioner was liable to pay to respondent No. 1 a concession fee. It is further submitted that for the initial year of the Concession Period, the said fee was fixed at Rs. 123.45 Cr. and as further stipulated in the Concession Agreement, for each subsequent year of the Concession Period, the Concession Fees was liable to be increased by 10%.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from January 2019 onwards, the petitioner observed a sharp and sudden decline in its User Fee collections. It is further submitted that the same was due to the diversion of commercial and non-commercial traffic through other cities / link roads on the occasion of Kumbh Mela, which is a large religious congregation. In order to accommodate to the needs of the large number of devotees attending the said event, the traffic was diverted by constructing new roads, bridges and also rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure by NHAI. The said developments resulted in the creation of "Competing Road" as per the Concession Agreement. In light of the same, the petitioner requested the respondent for adjustment and reduction of the Concession Fees.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 16th December, 2022 raised a demand of Rs. 180.63 Cr. from the petitioner, while ignoring the Competing Road claim and in absolute violation of the provisions of the Concession Agreement. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by way of its letter dated 10th January, 2023 titled as `Final Notice', respondent No. 1 once again raised a demand upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 219.53 Cr., in complete derogation of the Competing Road claims of the petitioner, which have been duly approved by respondent No. 2 and recommended by the internal teams of respondent No. 1.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a strong apprehension that respondent No. 1 may initiate coercive actions against the interests of the petitioner, which could result in grave and irr
The Arbitration Act facilitates a less rigorous, technical, and formal dispute resolution mechanism, and disputes between parties with an arbitration clause are considered arbitrable.
Pre-referral conciliation in arbitration agreements is directory, allowing parties to proceed directly to arbitration if amicable resolution fails.
The relief sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is interim in nature and cannot be a permanent measure.
A court cannot grant permanent relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as its provisions are limited to interim measures to support arbitration, not for final outcomes.
The court emphasized the limited grounds for interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the need for courts to show restraint in examining t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the intent and purpose of the Arbitration Act to provide a less rigorous, technical, and formal mechanism for dispute resolution....
Judicial interference in awards passed by Arbitral Tribunals should be minimal.
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.