IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
National Highways Authority of India - Appellant
Versus
C.P. Rama Rao - Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 215 of 2019 & I.A. 7620 of 2019 and 7311 of 2020
Decided On : 17-02-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over toll plaza user fee due to demonetisation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nhai's contention against demonetisation as force majeure. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court analysis on force majeure and contract law. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 30) |
| 4. court's dismissal of nhai's petition. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "
BRIEF FACTS
2. National Highways Authority of India [hereinafter, "NHAI"], entrusted operations of the Toll Plaza at Vempadu, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh [hereinafter, the "Toll Plaza"] to M/s. C.P. Rama Rao vide a Contract Agreement dated 30th July, 2016 [hereinafter, the "Contract Agreement"]. During the term of Contract, from 1st August, 2016 [08:00 hrs] to 01st August, 2017 [07:59 hrs] Respondent had agreed to pay Rs.2,24,40,274/- as weekly remittance from user fee collections at the Toll Plaza.
3. Disputes arose in relation to collection of user fee at the Toll Plaza, consequent to demonetisation policy effectuated by the Union of India, whereby Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes (the extent of which was about 85% of the total currency in circulation) were withdrawn as legal tender w.e.f. 8th November, 2016. Respondent sought waiver in remittance of agreed weekly amount, claiming the act of demonetisation to be a "force majeure" event - in accordance with Clause 25(b) of the Contract Agreement. NHAI, on the other hand, disputed that the event was force majeure, and also the Respondent's entitlement for waiver in remittance of agreed weekly charges. The disputes culminated in arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal, appointed by this Court, on a petition filed by the Respondent.
4. In Arbitration, Respondent (Claimant therein), contended that as a result of demonetisation, collection of user fee at the Toll Plaza came to a grinding halt w.e.f. 9th November, 2016 [00:00 hrs]. NHAI, vide e-mail dated 9th November, 2016, suspended collection of user fee from vehicles passing through the Toll Plaza. Nonetheless, before receipt of notice of suspension, for approximately 21 hours, commencing from 8th November, 2016 [22:00 hrs], the Respondent could not collect user fee at the Toll Plaza, and accordingly, sought waiver of the same during the said period. Such suspension continued at the Toll Plaza from 9th November, 2016 [17:30 hrs] to 2nd December, 2016 [24:00 hrs] for approximately 23.263 days [hereinafter, "toll free period"], on the basis of different circulars issued by NHAI and its respective Regional Offices. However, Respondent contended that the effect of demonetisation persisted throughout the `force majeure period' from 9th November, 2016 to 28th February, 2017, and thus, sought waiver of user fee during such period to the extent of the difference between actual weekly remittance and actual collection (minus the maintenance charges).
AT ARBITRATION
5. At Arbitration, the Respondents sought reliefs as follows:
"i) Waiver of the payment of Rs.6,76,71,317/- out of the liability of Rs.8,09,02,416/- considering the period 09.11.2016 to 28.02.2017 as period falling under Force Majeure period and;
ii) Refund for a sum of Rs.1,32,31,099/- (already paid under duress) out of the liability of Rs.8,09,02,416/- considering the period 09,11.2016 to 28.02.2017 as period falling under Force Majeure period and;
iii) Interest @ 18% per annum compounded quarterly on the amount of refund of Rs.1,32,31,099/-."
6. NHAI, on the other hand, defended the claims and raised counter-claims against the Respondent to the extent of (i) recovery of unpaid balance in terms of Clause `H' and 19 of the Contract Agreement; (ii) liquidated damages; and (
Demonetisation constituted a force majeure event under the contract, materially affecting obligations, thus allowing waiver of payment claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the force majeure clause, the arbitrability of certain claims, and the application of legal principles established in previou....
The introduction of GST is a change in law that materially affects contractual obligations, enabling claims for force majeure under the Contract Agreement.
The introduction of GST constituted a 'change in law' and had a material adverse effect on the obligations of the parties under the Contract Agreement, entitling the respondent to remission of paymen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting contractual provisions in accordance with their plain language and the grounds for challenging an award under Sectio....
Parties are entitled to interest on payments due under contracts; if no timeframe is specified, payments are due within 15 days of demand. The distinction between interest payments and debt repayment....
The COVID-19 lockdown is recognized as a force majeure event affecting contractual obligations, necessitating equitable treatment for parties under similar circumstances.
Point of Law - Limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court vested in it by Section 34 of the 1996 Act, no occasion arises for this Court to revisit the said findings of the learned Arbitral Tribu....
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.