Ircon International Ltd vs National Highways Authority Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 7067 Del

$~38
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       CS(OS) 1069/2015 & IA No.8104/2015
        IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD                         ..... Plaintiff
                      Through : Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Advocate
                      with Ms. Leena Tuteja, Advocate

                         versus

        NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Defendant
                      Through : Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                      ORDER

% 17.09.2015

1. Mr. Agnani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff

states that vide letter dated 20.8.2015, the defendant/National

Highways Authority of India has requested the plaintiff to collect the

demand draft for the sum of Rs.5,76,42,664/- drawn in its favour

towards the forfeited bid security in the form of a bank guarantee

amounting to Rs.5.67 lacs, which has been duly encashed. He

submits that the remaining claim of the plaintiff relates to the interest

on the principal amount for which, his client is ready and willing to

submit itself to the Committee of Disputes constituted in the Circular

dated 7.8.2014, issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice,

Government of India.

2. Counsel for the defendant, who appears pursuant to the order

dated 3.9.2015, states that her client would not have any objection to

mediating the dispute with the plaintiff in respect of the interest factor

claimed by it before the empowered agency of the Government.

3. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of, along with the pending

application, with liberty granted to the parties to negotiate a

settlement, if possible, through the empowered agency in terms of the

Circular dated 7.8.2014.

4. At this stage, Mr. Agnani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the plaintiff states that Section 89 CPC prescribes that where it

appears to the court that there exist an element of settlement which

may be acceptable to the parties, they may be referred to arbitration

or conciliation or judicial settlement or mediation, and in the present

case, the forum before which both the parties are willing to submit

themselves to conciliate their dispute would squarely fall under Section

89 (1)(a) or (b) CPC, and therefore, his client is entitled to seek refund

of the court fees.

5. Apparently, the object of the Circular dated 7.8.2014 issued by

the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India is to setup an

inhouse mechanism for redressal of disputes and eschew litigation in

courts. The said mechanism includes arbitration and other alternative

dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving disputes between

PSUs/Government departments, instead of resorting directly to court

proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the same

would fall under Section 89 CPC and the plaintiff would be entitled to

refund of court fees.

6. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in

favour of the plaintiff for refund of the court fees in terms of Section

16 of the Court Fees Act.

7. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 sk/rkb