Delhi High Court
Gvr Infra Projects Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 December, 2014
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 1533/2014
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr Atul
Sharma, Mr Milanka Chaudhury, Mr Sarojanand
Jha & Ms Isha J. Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms
Kritika Mehra, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 02.12.2014
IA No. 24084/2014 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
OMP No. 1533/2014
1. Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Mr. Jasmeet Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
3. I am informed by Mr. Jasmeet Singh that the contract in issue is being
executed through the Engineering Consultant, i.e., RITES Ltd. Therefore, in
view of the order that I propose to pass, both counsels say that the notice
need not be issued to the other respondents.
4. Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset,
says that the letter dated 19.11.2014 issued by RITES Ltd., which, inter alia,
issues a notice of termination of the contract in issue can operate as an order
of termination; albeit without prejudice to the petitioner's rights and
contentions, to agitate the legality of the termination.
5. At the outset, Mr Jasmeet Singh, submitted that he is agreeable to the
following offer made by the petitioner:
(i). out of the six bank guarantee, four bank guarantees bearing
nos.3008IBIS120029, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs.1,47,29,700/-; and
no.3008IBIS120030, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs.1,47,29,700/-; no.
3008IBIS120031, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs. 1,47,29,700/-; and no.
3008IBIS120032, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs. 1,47,29,607/- (which are in the
nature of mobilization bank guarantees) will be encashed by respondent no.1
subject to the petitioner's lodging its claim with respect to work done before
the learned arbitrator;
(ii). in so far as remaining two bank guarantees bearing no.
0993011BG0000355, dated 03.06.2011, for Rs.5,90,00,000/-; and no.
0993011BG0000356 dated 03.06.2011 for Rs.5,90,00,000/- (which are in
the nature of performance bank guarantees), are concerned, they shall not be
encashed, till such time, respondent no.1 moves an appropriate application
before the arbitrator, to be appointed in the matter. The result of these bank
guarantees will abide by the order(s) of the arbitrator, subject to the said
bank guarantees being kept alive;
(iii). the claims of the petitioner with regard to retrieval of plant and
machinery, tools, etc. lying at site will be agitated before the learned
arbitrator by way of an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act);
(iv). the petitioner will give the name of its nominee for his appointment as
an arbitrator out of the approved panel of the Indian Roads Congress, within
two weeks from today. Respondent no.1 shall do likewise within two weeks
from today. The third arbitrator will be appointed by the two
nominees of the petitioner and respondent no.1, who shall act as a Presiding
Officer;
5.1 In view of what is stated by the learned counsel for respondent no.1,
whereby in effect he has accepted the offer of the petitioner, no further
orders are called for in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act. Parties
will abide by the contents of paragraph 5(i) to (iv), which have fructified
into a consent order.
5.2 Needless to say, the parties will be free to lodge their claims and
counter claims, as they may be advised in the matter.
6. Since, counsels for parties are agreed that the procedure of DRE, as
encapsulated in the contract in issue, has been rendered inefficacious, the
parties will proceed to arbitration straightaway, as indicated above.
7. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition is
disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 02, 2014
kk
