FAO(OS)(COMM)No.113/2020 Page 1 of 6

$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 21.03.2022

+

FAO(OS)

(COMM)

113/2020,

CM

Nos.22864-66/2020

&

23295/2020

LALIT KUMAR JAIN & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through :

Mr Arvind Nigam, Mr Rajshekhar Rao

and

Mr

Jayant

Mehta,

Senior

Advocates with Mr Raghavendra

Mohan Bajaj, Mr Kumar Karan, Ms

Smriti Verma and Mr Agnish Aditya,

Advs.

versus

VISTRA ITCL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through :

Mr

Arun

Kathpalia

and

Mr

Krishnendu Datta, Senior Advocates

with Mr Hardeep Sachdeva, Mr Kamal

Shankar, Ms Priyamvada Shenoy, Mr

Pradyumna Sharma and Mr Parth

Chopra, Advocates for R-1 and R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.06.2020, passed by

the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4155/2020 in CS(COMM)No.288/2019.

1.1

Concededly, this application was moved by the appellants i.e., the

original defendant nos.1 and 3 as representatives of respondent

no.3/defendant no.4 in the backdrop of the order of the Supreme Court dated

11.05.2020, passed in M.A. No.927/2020 in SLP(C.) No.25412/2019.

2. The substantive prayers made in the application [i.e., I.A.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001026

FAO(OS)(COMM)No.113/2020 Page 2 of 6

No.4155/2020], in which, the impugned order has been passed reads as

follows :

“(a) grant a mandatory injunction and pass such necessary

Project by these Defendants under the aegis of this Hon’ble Court.”

3. Mr Arvind Nigam, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the

appellants, says that insofar as the relief sought in prayer clause (a) is

concerned, the same has lost its efficacy in view of the fact that the appellants

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001026

FAO(OS)(COMM)No.113/2020 Page 3 of 6

have now deposited the balance amount of Rs. 4/- crores with the Bombay

High Court in Notice of Motion (NOM) No.368/2019, preferred in

Commercial Arbitration Petition (CAP) No.238/2019.

3.1

To be noted, the aforesaid petition i.e., CAP No.238/2019, has been

preferred by respondent no.3/defendant no.4 under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, “1996 Act”], to assail the

arbitral award dated 13.06.2018 rendered in favour of the contractor i.e.,

POSCO (Engineering & Construction) India Pvt. Ltd.

3.2.

Insofar as the other prayers are concerned, it is Mr Nigam’s contention

that the remaining prayers have not been dealt with by the learned Single

Judge while passing the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, Mr Arun Kathpalia, learned senior counsel, who

appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, says that since the suit filed by

respondent nos.1 and 2 is a suit for recovery of monies invested in respondent

no.3/defendant no.4 by way of debentures, the learned Single Judge has held

that the remaining prayers had no connection with the final relief sought in

the suit.

4.1

It is in this context that Mr Kathpalia says that the learned Single Judge

has declined to issue any directions in the form of a mandatory injunction,

albeit at the interlocutory stage.

5. We may note that it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties

that the learned Single Judge, is presently, hearing arguments in the

application [i.e., I.A. No.5978/2020], filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 [i.e., the

original plaintiffs] under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[in short "CPC"]. .

5.1. We are told by M