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

2023 Supreme(Del) 4222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited – Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 41 of 2023 and I.A. Nos. 4029 of 2023, 536 of 2023
Decided On : 24-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nirav Shah, Mr.Sourabh Seth, Ms.Prachi Garg, Mr.Varun Kalra and Mr.Krishan Kumar and Mr.Saurabh Seth, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ankur Mittal, Mr.Abhay Gupta, Ms.Vasundhara and Mr.Raushal Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - SECTION 9 - STAY OF TERMINATION NOTICE - DETERMINABLE CONTRACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - PUBLIC INTEREST - INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - SECTIONS 20A AND 41(HA) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - NHAI CONTRACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a construction company, entered into an item rate Contract/Agreement (Contract) with the respondent, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), for strengthening/overlaying on Six Lane Gurgaon - Kotputli - Jaipur section of NH-48. The petitioner commenced the maintenance work after 18th August, 2022. On 30th August, 2022, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH) issued a circular with the objective of "adopting worldwide best practice in engineering techniques in design, construction and maintenance of highways, bridges and tunnels". On 24th December, 2022, the petitioner submitted the mixed design of Reclaimed/Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) along with the Construction Methodology of RAP for review and approval of the respondent. The petitioner sent a reminder letter dated 3rd January, 2023 to the respondent seeking review and approval of the RAP methodology for laying the road but the respondent rejected the proposal for use of RAP. The respondent issued a notice of termination dated 31st January, 2023 under Clause 63.1 of CoPA, giving a notice of 14 days, upon the expiry of which the respondent was automatically entitled to terminate the contract. The petitioner sent a reply to the said notice vide response dated 4th February, 2023. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Contract is determinable in nature and can be terminated by the respondent for default of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's contention that the Contract is not determinable is misconceived. 3. The Court cannot grant the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner as it would amount to granting of final relief which cannot be granted by the Court in the instant proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. 4. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for granting interim injunction in the instant matter. 5. The petition is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

Issues: 1. Whether the Contract is determinable in nature? 2. Whether the Court can grant the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner has made out any case for granting interim injunction in the instant matter?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A contract is determinable if it can be terminated by one party without the consent of the other party. 2. The Court cannot grant the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner as it would amount to granting of final relief which cannot be granted by the Court in the instant proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. 3. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for granting interim injunction in the instant matter.

Final Decision: The petition is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

Judgement Key Points

Key Facts

  • Petitioner (Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited) entered into an item rate contract with NHAI for strengthening/overlaying on Six Lane Gurgaon-Kotputli-Jaipur section of NH-48.[11000770250001][11000770250002]
  • Contract signed on 19th July 2022; commencement date declared 27th July 2022; petitioner commenced maintenance work after 18th August 2022.[11000770250002][11000770250003][11000770250004]
  • MoRTH circular dated 30th August 2022 promoted value engineering including RAP; petitioner submitted RAP mix design on 24th December 2022, reminder on 3rd January 2023; respondent rejected RAP on 17th January 2023.[11000770250004][11000770250005][11000770250013]
  • Respondent issued notice alleging defaults on 17th January 2023; petitioner replied denying allegations on 24th January 2023.[11000770250009]
  • Respondent issued Notice of Intention to Terminate (NITT) on 31st January 2023 under Clause 63.1 CoPA, providing 14 days' notice.[11000770250010] (!)
  • Petitioner invoked dispute resolution via Mediation Notice and Disputes Notice on 19th January 2023; replied to NITT on 4th February 2023.[11000770250006][11000770250016][11000770250010]
  • Performance Security BG: Rs.12,29,10,754/- (No. TTGGPGE221780068); Additional Performance Security BG: Rs.3,51,37,643/- (No. TTGGPGE221780066), both dated 27th June 2022. (!) (!) [11000770250003]
  • IPC-01 submitted 6th October 2022 for 75% payment; respondent released only 50% (Rs.6.30 crores) on 9th November 2022; accepted under protest.[11000770250008][11000770250018]
  • By 15th February 2023, physical progress: 10.472 km DBM (one side) out of 161.2 km; financial progress: Rs.8.03 crores (1.95%) of Rs.409.77 crores contract value.[11000770250044]

Reliefs Sought by Petitioner

  • Stay operation of NITT dated 31.01.2023 pending dispute resolution under Clause 67 CoPA. (!)
  • Ex-parte stay on encashment of Performance Security and Additional Performance Security BGs. (!) (!) (!)
  • Maintain status quo on BGs pending dispute determination. (!)

Petitioner's Key Contentions

  • Delays due to respondent's failure to approve work programme, drawings, RAP methodology, JMF, and source approvals.[11000770250011][11000770250013][11000770250024][11000770250025]
  • Respondent directed diversion of resources to Haryana for flood works, outside contract scope.[11000770250030]
  • Contract not determinable; NITT arbitrary, issued without following Clause 46.1/37.4 or completing dispute resolution.[11000770250029][11000770250020][11000770250067]
  • Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury; new tender would burden public exchequer (project cost escalation to Rs.1000+ crores).[11000770250027][11000770250031][11000770250032]
  • Petitioner expended Rs.80 crores; ready/willing to perform.[11000770250031]

Respondent's Key Contentions (NHAI)

  • Petitioner showed no progress in 6 months despite reminders; NITT under Clause 63.1 due to defaults (no bitumen, no drawings, HMP breakdown, missed deadlines).[11000770250010][11000770250037][11000770250042]
  • Revised work programme unrealistic (higher bituminous work in rainy season); team leader's approval withdrawn by engineer on 15th February 2023 as unauthorized.[11000770250038][11000770250039][11000770250040]
  • RAP not in BOQ; no approval granted.[11000770250062]
  • Contract determinable under Clause 63.1(a)/(f); Section 14(1)(c) SRA bars specific performance/enforcement via injunction.[11000770250046][11000770250048][11000770250050]
  • Sections 20A/41(ha) SRA prohibit injunctions delaying infrastructure projects; petitioner non-performer (3.08% progress in 8 months).[11000770250051][11000770250052][11000770250053][11000770250076]
  • No irreparable loss; damages adequate; Clause 67 not bar to Clause 63.1.[11000770250045][11000770250056]

Court's Findings

  • Petition under Section 9 Arbitration Act for interim measures (injunction against NITT, BG encashment). (!) (!) (!)
  • Contract determinable by nature under Clause 63.1; injunction would enforce specific performance, barred by Section 14(1)(c) SRA.[11000770250071][11000770250072]
  • Stay on NITT equates to stay on termination (mandatory 14-day precursor); cannot be granted indirectly.[11000770250077]
  • Sections 20A/41(ha) SRA apply; injunction would delay infrastructure project (dismal progress admitted).[11000770250075][11000770250076]
  • No prima facie case; balance of convenience/irreparable loss not in petitioner's favor; damages adequate remedy.[11000770250069][11000770250078][11000770250079]
  • Disputes (delays, RAP, approvals, defaults) for arbitral tribunal; court refrains from merits.[11000770250068][11000770250082]
  • Proposal to treat Section 9 petition as Section 17 application rejected (no consent).[11000770250080]

Final Outcome

  • Petition dismissed; pending applications dismissed. (!) [11000770250082]
  • Observations prima facie only, not merits finding.[11000770250083]

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

    "(a) Pass an order staying the operation and effect of the Notice dated 31.01.2023 of intent to terminate the Contract issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, and restrain the Respondent from acting upon the said notice pending the completion of the dispute resolution process set out in Clause 67 of Conditions of Particular Application in the Contract;

    (b) Issue ex-parte ad interim stay to restrain the Respondent, its principal officers, servants, agents and all other acting for, and on their behalf, from invoking and encashing the following bank guarantees submitted by the Petitioner and its group concerns:

    a. Performance Security Bank Guarantee dated 27.06.2022 bearing No. TTGGPGE221780068 issued for an amount of Rs.12,29,10,754/- by the Petitioner;

    b. Additional Performance Security Bank Guarantee dated 27.06.2022 bearing No. TTGGPGE221780066 issued for an amount of Rs.3,51,37,643/- by the Petitioner.

    (c) Direct the Respondent to maintain status quo with respect to the Performance Security Bank Guarantee dated 27.06.2022 and Additional Performance Security Bank Guarantee dated 27.06.2022, pending determination of subject matter of dispute between the parties in accordance with the terms of the Contract;

    (d) Pass ad-interim orders reliefs in terms of the above prayer;

    (e) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fair and equitable in the circumstances."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner i.e. Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at SN-29 HN-20 Kondhwa Kd. Nr. Kubex Soc. Nr. Shera School, Pune, Maharashtra-411048. The petitioner is a construction company having a wide experience in the construction of roadways. The respondent i.e. National Highway Authority of India was set up by the NHAI Act, 1988, as an autonomous agency of the Government of India. The respondent invited bids for strengthening/overlaying on Six Lane Gurgaon - Kotputli - Jaipur section of NH-48 (Old NH-8) from Km 107+100 to Km 273+000 of main carriage way (MCW) and additionally, about 312 Km both sides of service road project in the State of Rajasthan at the risk and cost of Concessionaire on item rate basis (percentage basis project). In August 2021, the petitioner also took part in said bid and being the lowest bidder, the Letter of Award No. NHAI/NHDP-V/MC-II/Gur-Jpr/Raj/Item Rate/2021 (Pt-1)/E-138079/55406 dated 30th May, 2022 (LOA) was issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. On 19th July, 2022, the petitioner and respondent entered into item rate Contract/Agreement (Contract), thereby materializing the terms and conditions to carry out the works under the project. On 27th July, 2022, the respondent issued the Notice of Commencement and declaration of commencement date, whereby 27th July, 2022 was declared as the date of commencement of the project. In terms of Clause 41.1 of the Conditions of Particular Application (CoPA), the petitioner was supposed to commence the works as soon as possible after the receipt of a notice from the engineer.

4. The petitioner submitted the Performance Security dated 27th June, 2022 and Additional Performance Security dated 27th June, 2022, amounting to Rs.12,29,10,754/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four Only) and Rs.3,51, 37, 643/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifty One Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Three Only) respectively to the respondent in the form of bank guarantees in accordance with the Contract.

5. The petitioner commenced the maintenance work after 18th August, 2022. On 30th August, 2022, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH) issued a circular with the objective of "adopting worldwide best practice i

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