Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 12521 of 2024
In/and
Commercial Appeal No. 16 of 2024
and
Commercial Appeal No. 16 of 2024
Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having its office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand through its Administrator, Sri Sandeep Singh son of Sri Vijay Pal Singh aged about 40 years resident of Jawahar Nagar, Kanke Road, P.O. Gonda & P.S. Gonda, District : Ranchi ... ... Appellant
Versus
M/s A2Z Waste Management (Ranchi) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at O-116, First Floor, DLF Shopping Mall, Arjun Marg, DLF, Phase-I, Gurgaon, P.O. & P.S. Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, Haryana, PIN-122002. ... Respondent
with
Commercial Appeal No. 3 of 2024
M/s A2Z Waste Management (Ranchi) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at O-116, First Floor, DLF Shopping Mall, Arjun Marg, DLF, Phase-I, Gurgaon, P.O. & P.S. Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, PIN-122002, State of Haryana, through its Authorized Signatory, namely, Vishal G Gussain, aged about 26 years, Son of Chandan Singh Ghurdaura, resident of Flat No. 427, P And T Flats, R.K. Puram, Sector-6, Postal Sb, P.O. and P.S.-R.K. Puram, New Delhi, Pin Code-110022. .... ... Appellant
Versus
Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its Registered office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN – 834001 ... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sashank Sekhar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate.
[Commercial Appeal No. 16 of 2024]
For the Appellant : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sashank Sekhar, Advocate.
[Commercial Appeal No. 3 of 2024]
C.A.V. On: 17.04.2025 Pronounced On: 6.5.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
Commercial Appeal No. 3 of 2024 is filed by M/s A2Z Waste Management (Ranchi) Limited against the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (for short the RMC) challenging the judgment dt. 05.01.2024 in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 11 of 2023 of the Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The same judgment is also questioned by the RMC in Commercial Appeal No. 16 of 2024, but the said appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Act with a delay of 320 days and I.A. No. 12521 of 2024 is filed by it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the said period of delay.
3. Since both appeals arise out of the same judgment, we deem it desirable to decide these matters together.
The Background facts
4. An agreement dt. 29.01.2011 was entered into by the RMC with M/s. A to Z Infrastructure Limited for a project dealing with Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ranchi after a process of tendering in which M/s. A to Z Infrastructure Limited was the successful bidder.
5. M/s. A to Z Infrastructure Limited established a special purpose vehicle namely M/s. A to Z Waste Management, Ranchi Limited (for short ‘Contractor’) and a Concessionaire agreement was formalized on 03.06.2011 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2011.
6. In the course of execution of the contract, disputes arose between the parties and the Contractor terminated the contract on 27.12.2013 citing clause 9.2 (C) and invoked the arbitration clause Article 11.2 (a) of the Concessionaire agreement dt. 03.06.2011 on 07.04.2014.
7. The Contractor appointed its nominee arbitrator and requested the RMC to appoint their arbitrator.
8. As RMC failed to appoint its nominee arbitrator the Contractor approached the High Court of Jharkhand by filing Arbitration Application No. 3 of 2015. The High Court appointed Shri S. K. Murari as a nominee arbitrator on behalf of RMC.
9. Subsequently, both arbitrators appointed Justice S.B. Sinha, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as Presiding Arbitrator.
10. The parties submitted their claims, objections and counter claims and presented oral and documentary evidence to support their respective positions.
The Arbitral Award
11. On 11.05.2018, arbitral award was passed in favour of the Contractor directing RMC to pay Rs.6,41,24,500/-. The summary of the arbitral Award is as under: -
Claims and order of the learned Arbitral Tribunal
| Sl. No | Claim No. | Brief Description of Claims | Amount of Claim (In Rs.) | Whether Claim Allowed or Rejected or modified | If Allowed for What amount | Remarks If any |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claim No. 1 | Failure to make payments for the monthly bills submitted towards tipping fees for collection and transportation of MSW for the period for the period for 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2013 | Rs.1,71,95,156 | Allowed | Rs.1,71,95,156 | |
| 2 | Claim No. 2 | Failure to make payments towards investment over Capital Grant for the vehicles, equipment and assets engaged in C&T operations. | Rejected | |||
| 3 | Claim No. 3 | Failure to make payments towards investment over Capital Grant for development of T & D facility | Rejected | |||
| 4 | Claim No. 4 | Illegal encashment of Performance Security Bank Guarantee of the Contractor by the Respondent | Rejected (appropriated towards general damages) | Encashment not illegal. Respondent was entitled to invoke Bank Guarantee. | ||
| 5 | Claim No. 5 | Claim for reimbursement of additional cost incurred by the Contractor on account of Force Majeure, change in law and Government policies resulting in material adverse effect on the operating cost of the Contractor | Rejected | |||
| 6 | Claim No. 6 | Termination charges due to RMC Event of Default as per Article 9.2 (f) (i) | Rejected | |||
| 7 | Claim No. 7 | Accrued losses due to non-production of compost & RDF during the Operational Period (April 11 to Dec. 13) due to delay in handing over of land for MSW Waste Processing Project. | Rejected | Contractor | ||
