Delhi High Court
National Highways Authority Of ... vs M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. on 4 April, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order decided on: April 04, 2014
+ OMP No.396/2014
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Meenakshi Sood, Adv. with
Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
M/S SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the abovementioned petition under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award
dated 13th December, 2013 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that the
issues involved in the present petition have already been decided by this
Court on 6th January, 2014 in another OMP No.4/2014 titled as National
Highways Authority of India vs. AFCONS-APIL (Joint Venture) wherein
it was observed that:-
"....To be able to efficiently and effectively deal with
objections, I direct that NHAI shall, whenever it objects to an
Arbitral Award, make a specific disclosure in respect of each
claim to which objections are raised, whether similar claims in
other cases have been allowed or disallowed; whether the
objections preferred by the NHAI, or the opposite party, in
respect of such claims have been allowed/disallowed; and
the stage at which the issues raised by the NHAI are pending. If
they have been finally concluded, that position should also be
indicated. In case the issues stand concluded, the NHAI shall
specifically explain as to why the same issue is sought to be
raised again before the Court."
3. It is not denied by the petitioner that the issue involved in the subject
matter has been decided against the petitioner by the Division Bench of this
Court. But the same issue is now pending before Supreme Court. With
regard to the issue of royalty, the same has also been confirmed by Division
Bench of this Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs.
ITD Cementation India Ltd., being FAO(OS) No.216/2007 decided on 30th
November, 2007 as well as in the case of M/s OSE-GIL J.V. vs. National
Highways Authority of India, being FAO(OS) No.347/2010 decided on 9th
February, 2011 wherein similar prayer was made and after considering the
request of the petitioner, the Division Bench passed the following orders:-
"At that stage, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
Appellant had drawn our attention to the fact that notice had
been issued in Special Leave to Petition against the Division
Bench Judgment in ITD Cementation India Ltd.
Nevertheless, on 29.11.2010 we passed the following Order
in FAO(OS) 140/2008:-
"We have noted that the questions which have arisen
in this Appeal had also arisen before a Division Bench
in National Highway Authority of India vs- ITD
Cementation India Ltd. in FAO(OS) 216/2007. We are
informed that the impugned Order follows this decision
of the Division Bench, as the Learned Single Judge
was bound to do. The contention is that since a Special
Leave Petition has been preferred against the decision
in FAO(OS) 216/2007, this Court ought to adjourn
proceedings to await a Judgment of Their Lordships in
that Appeal. Mr Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant, states that Leave has been granted
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We cannot subscribe to
the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for
the Appellant. In our view the proper course is to
decide the present Appeal on the parity of reasoning
adopted by the Division Bench in FAO(OS) 216/2007.
Taking any other approach would lead not only to
multiplicity of proceedings but also to a legal
anathema, which is, the likelihood of different views
being expressed by co-ordinate Benches. Needless to
state, the Appellant before us will not be precluded
from filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In such a situation, we are in no
manner of doubt that both the SLPs will be heard
together. That is, however, for Their Lordships to
decide. The impugned Judgment is premised on NHAI
vs- ITD Cementation India Ltd., with which we
respectfully concur. We also find no error in the
impugned Judgment. In these circumstances, the
Appeal is dismissed. Pending Application also stands
dismissed.""
4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
issues involved in the abovementioned matters have been challenged by the
petitioner in the Supreme Court and the same are now pending in SLP(C)
No.21466/2011 titled as NHAI vs. OSE-GIL (JV) and SLP(C)
No.23126/2013 titled as NHAI vs. PCL-SUNCON (JV). Thus, the present
petition may not be disposed of. Counsel, at the same time, does not dispute
that the similar request was made before the Division Bench of this Court in
FAO(OS) No.347/2010 where the said request was not accepted by the
Division Bench in the appeals.
5. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to accede to the request
of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
APRIL 04, 2014
