$~1 TO 3 & 42

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 2^nd February, 2024

+

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 426/2023

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. J. P. Singh (Sr Adv), Mr.

Subhash

Gulati,

Mr.

Shashank

Sharma, Advs. (M. 9811077674)

versus

IIC LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajat Navet, Mr. Shashi Kant,

Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Mr. Harshpal

Singh Negi, Advs. for R-2 (M.

9650881816)

2

WITH

+

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 427/2023

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. J. P. Singh (Sr Adv), Mr.

Subhash

Gulati,

Mr.

Shashank

Sharma, Advs. (M. 9811077674)

versus

IIC LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajat Navet, Mr. Shashi Kant,

Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Mr. Harshpal

Singh Negi, Advs. for R-2 (M.

9650881816)

3

AND

+

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 20/2024

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. J. P. Singh (Sr Adv), Mr.

Subhash

Gulati,

Mr.

Shashank

Sharma, Advs. (M. 9811077674)

versus

SINNAR THERMAL POWER

LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. for R-1 (M.

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:08.02.2024

17:41:04

Signature Not Verified

9872464483)

Mr. Rajat Navet, Mr. Shashi Kant,

Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Mr. Harshpal

Singh Negi, Advs. for R-2 (M.

9650881816) 42

AND

+

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 637/2023

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. J. P. Singh (Sr Adv), Mr.

Subhash

Gulati,

Mr.

Shashank

Sharma, Advs.

versus

ELENA POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE

LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Sikhar

Tiwari,

Advs.

for

R-1

(M.

9198040001)

Mr. Rajat Navet, Mr. Shashi Kant,

Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Mr. Harshpal

Singh Negi, Advs. for R-2 (M.

9650881816)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These four petitions raise an important issue concerning the

interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

(hereinafter, ‘1996 Act’). The parties in all the four petitions are set out in

the following table:

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:08.02.2024

17:41:04

Signature Not Verified

Case Number

Petitioner

Respondents

Project

O.M.P.(MISC.)

(COMM.) 426/2023

Larsen and

Toubro Limited

IIC Ltd. & RPL

EBOP Nashik

O.M.P.(MISC.)

(COMM.) 427/2023

Larsen and

Toubro Limited

IIC Ltd. & RPL

EBOP Amravati

O.M.P.(MISC.)

(COMM.) 20/2024

Larsen and

Toubro Limited

Sinnar Thermal

Power

Limited

& RPL.

CHP Nashik

O.M.P.(MISC.)

(COMM.) 637/2023

Larsen and

Toubro Limited

Elena Power and

Infrastructure

Limited & RPL.

CHP Amravati

The facts in each of the four petitions are as under:

O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 426/2023

3. The Petitioner- Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (hereinafter, L&T) was

awarded a Letter of Intent (hereinafter, ‘LoI’) dated 5^th October, 2010 in

respect of the Thermal Power Plant located at Sinnar, Nasik, Maharashtra,

India (hereinafter, ‘Nashik Project’). The Letter of Award (hereinafter,

‘LoA’) is dated 19th October, 2010 with respect to the said Nashik Project.

Further, in pursuance of LoI and LoA, two contracts were entered into

between parties, i.e. a Supply Contract dated 18^th February, 2011 and a

Service Contract dated 18^th February, 2011.

4. In the present petition, the Respondent No. 1 is M/s. IIC Limited

(hereinafter, ‘IICL’), and Respondent No. 2 is M/s. Rattan India Power

Limited (hereinafter, ‘RPL’). As per the petition, in 2010, RPL initiated the

Nashik Project for which the IICL invited bids.

5. According to L&T, the Nashik Project was concluded and the plant

was commissioned on 30th May, 2017. Thereafter, in terms of the LoI and

the LoA, payments were due to L&T, which were allegedly not paid by the

Respondents- IICL and RPL, due to which L&T invoked the arbitration

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:08.02.2024

17:41:04

Signature Not Verified

clau