$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 15^th March, 2024.

+ ARB.P. 510/2023 TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Tare, Adv. with Mr.

Anup Jain, Mr. Udit Gupta and Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advs. (M:

9312989749).

versus ENGINEERING PROJECT (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate with Ms.

Nikita Bhardwaj & Ms. Aakriti Bhandari, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’). The petition arises out of a work order dated 4th June, 2012 by which the Petitioner was awarded the work at Kho river for 33 KV Line of 33.11 KV, Badharpur Sub-Station in District Bijnour U.P. (hereinafter, ‘project’).

3. As per the Petitioner, the work was completed on 29th August, 2012 and the final claim raised by it was Rs. 48,47,041.98/-. The Bill was raised on 29th October, 2013. The admitted position is that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid as part payment to the Petitioner in 2014 i.e. on 3rd January, 2014.

Thereafter, TDS was deducted in the following manner:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P.510/2023 Page1of18

4. The Petitioner continued to follow up for the remaining outstanding amount but the same was not paid. Various letters were written by the Petitioner between 2014 and 2015, however, the balance payment of Rs.

33,47,042/- was not paid.

5. The Petitioner then moved some RTI applications requesting for furnishing details and information including amount due and payable. In response to one of the said applications, i.e., the RTIs’ reply dated 4th April, 2016, it was stated as under:-

“1. Work order of rupees 40,96,115/- was released in favour of M/S Technical Construction Company.

2. As per the available records, the date of completion of the project was 29.08.2012.

3. A payment of rupees 15 lakh has been made against the above said work order.

4. Until today payment of rupees 15 lakh has been made and remaining amount is 30,86,719/-.

5. VAT and TDS has already been deducted and deposited before the concerned authority.

6. Remaining payment could not be made due to non-receiving of payment from PVVNL.”

6. When this reply was received, the Petitioner issued further notice dated 9th September, 2017 calling upon the Respondent to pay the amount.

7. Thereafter, on the basis that the said amount is an undisputed amount, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil 1196/2018 titled M/S Technical Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P.510/2023 Page2of18 Construction Company v. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and Anr. Vide order dated 9th February, 2018, the Court rejected the said writ petition in the following terms:-

“8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A bare perusal of the terms and conditions indicates that it includes an alternate dispute resolution clause, whereby all disputes are to be resolved amicably failing which the same are to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman and Managing Director of EPI or a person appointed by the CMD, of EPL.

9. It is also apparent that the dispute raised is a contractual dispute and the petitioner has an adequate remedy by way of arbitration. Further, it would not be apposite to entertain a writ petition in respect of such contractual disputes.

10.The contention that there is no dispute since the amount payable been admitted by EPIL, is not persuasive. EPIL has given a reason for not making the remaining payment; that is, non-receipt of funds from PVVNL. The question whether the said explanation is justified is plainly a matter of dispute

11.In view of the above this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take such remedies as may be available in law.”

8. The Petitioner continued to pursue with the Respondent and