Delhi High Court
Gvr Infra Projects Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 November, 2014
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 1464/2014
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Atul Sharma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Mr.
Sarojanand Jha, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr.
Yash Srivastava, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Kritika
Mehra, Mr. Srivats and Ms. Pallavi, Advocates for
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 25.11.2014
IA No.23288/2014 (for directions)
1. Mr. Jain, the learned ASG, without getting into the merits of the
application says that in view of the fact that this court had while passing an
order on 20.11.2014 taken care that the status quo as at 2.48 p.m. will
prevail via-s-vis the bank guarantees in issue, whatever transpired thereafter
is a matter on which he would not like the court to enquire any further, as
the officer concerned, Mr. Soumitra Mandal, who is present in court renders
his unconditional apology.
2. The learned ASG also says that dehors the merits of the matter, a sum
O.M.P. 1464/2014 page 1 of 4
of Rs.10.67 Crores which was credited to the account of respondent no.1 by
respondent no.2 bank, is a transaction which will be reversed, within three
days from today; for which he has the consent of respondent no.1. The
contention made in the application though, is that, a sum of Rs.21.34 Crores
was credited to the account of respondent no.1.
2.1 In these circumstances, the net result is that the entire amount shall
remain with respondent no.2 bank, till further orders of the court.
3. Mr. Nayar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner says that in
view of the statement of the learned ASG he does not wish to press the
captioned application any further.
4. The application is disposed of accordingly.
O.M.P. 1464/2014
5. After the aforementioned order was passed in I.A. No.23288/2014,
Mr. Jain, the learned ASG, 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.3008IBGIS120025, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs.2,66,35,000/-;
No.30081BGIS120026, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs.2,66,35,000/-;
No.3008IBGIS120027, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs.2,66,35,000/-; and
No.3008IBGIS120028, dated 28.09.2012, for Rs.2,66,32,031/- (which are
in the nature of advance bank guarantees) will be encashed by respondent
no.1 subject to the petitioner's lodging their claim with respect to work done
before the learned arbitrator;
(ii). in so far as remaining two bank guarantees bearing
no.03051LG010811, dated 13.08.2011, for Rs. 10,67,00,000/- and
O.M.P. 1464/2014 page 2 of 4
No.0305ILG010711 dated 12.08.2011 for Rs.10,67,00,000/- (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 name of their nominee for his appointment as
an arbitrator out of the approved panel of 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 ASG, 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.
O.M.P. 1464/2014 page 3 of 4
7. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition is
disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 25, 2014
Yg
O.M.P. 1464/2014 page 4 of 4
