NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000744

ARB.P. 1140/2022

Page 1 of 33

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:

16^th December, 2022

Pronounced on: 2^nd February, 2023

+

ARB.P. 1140/2022

METCON INDIA REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.

LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocate

versus

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. V. S. R. Krishna and

Mr. V. Shashank Kumar,

Advocates

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the

appointment of an independent Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) of

the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”), and has inter-alia prayed for the following reliefs:

Digitally Signed By:GAURAV

SHARMA

Signing Date:02.02.2023

18:18:53

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000744

ARB.P. 1140/2022

Page 2 of 33

case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

The Petitioner is a firm engaged in civil contracting, land &

property development, and real estate sectors. The Respondent is a

Centre-State Joint Venture responsible for operating the Delhi Metro and

the scope of its work involves planning and implementation of metro rail,

monorail, and high-speed rail projects in India and abroad.

3.

The Petitioner, on 08.09.2015, submitted its bid for Contract CC-

95, pertaining to the construction of the viaduct, and roof portal along

with finishing the work for the automatic walkaway/travelators at Dhaula

Kuan and Rajouri Garden Interchange Stations of Line-7, Phase III of the

Delhi MTRS.

4.

Subsequently, in pursuance of the submitted bid, the Respondent

on 11.01.2016 issued a Letter of Acceptance (hereinafter referred to as

the “LOA”) to the Petitioner for the said contract at a total cost of Rs.

55,07,87,249/-. Furthermore, the LOA stipulated the timeline for the

competition of the work which was 15 months commencing from 1^st

February 2016.

5.

The Petitioner’s contention is that the Respondent had added extra

work and had changed the scope of work provided for by the contract,

and the same was undertaken by them on the Respondent’s assurance that

due payments will be made for the extra work. The Petitioner further

Digitally Signed By:GAURAV

SHARMA

Signing Date:02.02.2023

18:18:53

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000744

ARB.P. 1140/2022

Page 3 of 33

submits that while it had duly executed all the work and raised timely

bills, the same was not honoured by the Respondents, despite their prior

understanding on the same.

6.

The Petitioner invoked arbitration by its notice dated 09.06.2022

whereby the Petitioner had inter alia sought the payment of claim amount

of Rs. 55,50,91,763.36 including interest for the extra items/extra work

done by the Petitioner and has accordingly, sought to refer the dispute to

arbitration. However, the Respondent rejected the same on the ground

that the Petitioner’s notice had exceeded the prescribed time limit under

Clause 17.4 of the GCC.

7.

The Respondent further stated in its notice that the Petitioner had

submitted the No Claims Declaration dated 19.03.2021, as per which

once the final payment under the contract is released, then the contractual

agreement including the arbitration clause would be instantly discharged

and rescinded. However, it is contested by the Petitioner that the No

Claims Declaration had been obtained by the Respondent under economic

duress and coercion by refusing to release any payment which was due to

the Petitioner, and thus, the No Claim Declaration should be rejected by

the court.

8.

The Petitioner has preferred this instant petition under Section

11(6) of the Act pertaining to the dispute regarding extra work that was

assigned to the Petitioner.

Digitally Signed By:GAURAV

SHARMA

Signing Date:02.02.2023

18:18:53

Signature Not Ve