SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 129 ; 2021 Supreme(Del) 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON, JJ.
National Highways Authority Of India – Appellant
Versus
Panipat Jalandhar Nh-I Tollway Pvt. Ltd - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 55 of 2021 & C.M.Nos.11596-11597 of 2021
Decided on : 13-04-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tushar Mehta, SGI with Ms. Madhu Sweta and Ms. Shivangi Khanna, Advocates
For the Respondent:Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocates with Mr. Dhirendra Negi, Ms. Pragya Chauhan and Mr. Amit Bhandari, Advocates

Point of Law: Concession Agreement - Termination/Suspension Notice - Article 36, it is required to mandatorily await lapse of 180 days before termination can occur or that once suspension has been invoked, termination can only be on efflux of 180 days.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 36, 37, 12.4 , 7.1 , 7, 37 and 36 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14(1)(c) and Section 41 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 167 - Seeking a stay on NIT - Cure Period Notice’ - Accident – Composite scheme - Whether maintenance was good or bad or indifferent, is not a subject matter of a Section 9 - whether the maintenance was good or bad or indifferent, is not a subject matter of a Section 9 petition and therefore, the present appeal - whether even if the Articles are not mutually exclusive, whether the termination would have had to wait for the expiry of 180 days.

Finding of the court: In case of suspension of concessionaire rights under Article 36 is that no termination can be effected for 90 days, as the concessionaire has right to seek revocation if default is cured within a period not exceeding 90 days - Vide letter since Senior Lenders had also concurred with termination once defects were not cured within 90 days, therefore, there was no requirement of waiting for 180 days before terminating CA. Even otherwise, situations may arise such as, insolvency of concessionaire or other inability on part of concessionaire to cure defaults and there may be a situation when in public interest CA may have to be terminated, much before 180 days - Court unable to agree with observation of te learned Single Judge that NHAI is estopped from exercising its rights of termination under Article 37

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ASHA MENON, J:

1. The following observations by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 12th March, 2021 passed in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 98/2021 has brought the appellant/National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”, for short) before us: -

    “21. Mr. Mehta has laid much emphasis on the intent of the language used in Clause 37.1.2 which begins with the words “without prejudice to any other rights or remedies”. There is no doubt that the Respondent could take recourse to the aforesaid provision without prejudice to other rights and remedies and proceed to suspend the Petitioner and accord it an opportunity to cure the defects. However, that does not mean that in case the Respondent has elected to exercise this remedy, it could simultaneously also proceed to terminate under Clause 37.1.2 on the basis of same set of facts. Since the Respondent has elected to go down the path of suspending the rights of the Petitioner as available under the agreement, the opportunity to cure the defects has to be necessarily given, failing which, the Clause itself would become redundant.

22. Be that as it may, we are at the stage of admission. The Petitioner has made out a prima facie case in its favour and in case no stay is granted, it will suffer an irreparable loss. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent. The matter certainly requires consideration. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the termination notice dated 5th March, 2021 is directed to be kept in abeyance. The arrangement between the parties would continue as per the orders passed in O.M.P. (I) (COMM) No. 421/2020, noted above.”

2. The crux of the submissions of Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the NHAI, is that the provisions under Article 36 and Article 37 of the Concession Agreement (“CA”, for short) do not operate in separate and mutually exclusive spheres but form a “composite scheme” and both options are available to the NHAI in the event there is a concessionaire default.

3. Per contra, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sh.Harish Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/Panipat Jalandhar NH-I Tollway Pvt. Ltd. (“PJT”, for short) contended that the two Articles are mutually exclusive and if the NHAI exercised its choice of proceeding under Article 36, it could not jump to Article 37 to terminate the CA, without allowing the entire procedure provided under Article 36 to play out.

4. At this stage, it may be appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of the present case. On 9th May, 2008, the parties entered into the CA in respect of ‘Six-Laning of Panipat-Jalandhar Section of NH-1 From Km 96.00 to Km 387.10 (length of 291.10 Km) in the State of Haryana and Punjab to be executed on Built-Operate-Transfer (Toll) basis on Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) pattern under NHDP Phase-V’ (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). The CA was entered for a period of fifteen years from 11th May, 2009 till 11th May, 2024. The project was scheduled to be completed by 9th November, 2011 (in 910 days or 2.5 years). In terms of the CA, the parties had also executed an Escrow Agreement dated 6th May, 2009 with the Lenders, where State Bank of India (“SBI”, for short) was the Escrow Agent for operation of the Escrow Account. The estimated cost of the project was Rs.2747.50 crores but the Capital Cost submitted by the respondent/PJT amounted to Rs.4518.17 crores. Disputes arose between the parties even before the Provisional Completion Certificate was issued by the Independent Engineer (“I.E.”, for short) on 30th September, 2015. These disputes, relating to the year 2013, are before an Arbitral Tribunal.

5. According to the NHAI, the respondent/PJT failed to meet its O & M obligations as per the CA, in particular, relating to safety standards leading to accidents and the completion of balance work after issuance of the Provisional Completion Certificate. On 13th September, 2019, the NH

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                    Please visit our Training & Support
                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top