Tuesday, 28, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S. Jay Prestressed Products ... vs Union Of India Through Northern ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 251 Del

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 251 Del
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2021

Delhi High Court
M/S. Jay Prestressed Products ... vs Union Of India Through Northern ... on 25 January, 2021
                                                                                             Signature Not Verified
                                                                                             Digitally Signed By:DINESH
                                                                                             SINGH NAYAL
                                                                                             Signing Date:26.01.2021
                                                                                             12:20:46

                                $~9 & 10
                                *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                   Date of decision: 25th January, 2021
                                +                TR.P.(C.) 6/2021 & CM APPL.1635/2021
                                +                TR.P.(C.) 7/2021 & CM APPL.1636/2021
                                         M/S. JAY PRESTRESSED PRODUCTS LTD.         ..... Petitioner
                                                        Through: Mr. Sahil Garg and Mr. Ankit Gupta,
                                                                 Advocates. (M:9560690036)
                                                        versus

                                         UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NORTHERN
                                         RAILWAYS                               ..... Respondent
                                                       Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh and Mr. Vipin
                                                                Choudhary,               Advocates.
                                                                (M:9711161241)
                                         CORAM:
                                         JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                                Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done in hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

2. These petitions have been filed by M/s Jay Prestressed Products Limited seeking transfer of two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pending before the Patiala House Courts to this Court.

3. The brief background is that tenders were invited by the Railways for manufacture and supply of pre-stressed mono-black line concrete (pre- tensioned type) for broad gauge (1673 mm) to RDSO Drg. No. T-2496 to suit 60 Kg. UIC rail for quantity 3,05,334 nos. and the Petitioner had submitted its offer on 15th January, 2009. The contract was awarded to the Petitioner on 16th December, 2009 and performance had started under the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:25.01.2021 22:26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.01.2021 12:20:46

contract. However, disputes arose between the parties leading to the imposition of liquidated damages upon the Petitioner. The Railway appointed an Arbitrator as per the conditions of the contract. The arbitration proceedings culminated into four different awards dated 26th March, 2019, all in favour of the Petitioner. Details of the liquidated damages which were imposed and the amounts awarded in each arbitration are set out herein below:

S. No. Letter imposing Amount of LD Awarded Liquidated amount Damages

1. 187- Rs.88,58,173/- Rs.4,97,589/-

S/10/B/TS/JPP/C S-162 dated 18.12.2012

2. 187- Rs.80,699,10/- Rs.5,37,041/-

S/10/B/TS/JPP/C S-162 dated 29.08.2012

3. 187- Rs.16,03,708/- Rs.25,88,796/-

S/10/B/TS/JPP/C S-162 dated 01.12.2011

4. 187- Rs.31,26,735/- Rs.25,88,796/-

S/1017/TS/JPP/C S-162 dated 22.02.2012

5. 187- Rs.13,35,475/- Rs.62,395/-

S/10/B/TS/JPP/C S-162 dated 14.09.2012

4. Since four separate awards were passed awarding four separate amounts, the Respondent filed four separate OMPs, the details of which are as under:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:25.01.2021 22:26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.01.2021 12:20:46

"

                                            S. No. Award                       Forum            Reference
                                              1.   Award dated 12.03.2019      Delhi       High OMP
                                                   pertaining    to   Letter   Court            (Comm)
                                                   No.187-                                      352 of 2019
                                                   S/10/B/TS/JPP/CS-162
                                                   dated 18.12.2012
                                              2.   Award dated 26.03.2019      Delhi       High OMP
                                                   pertaining    to   Letter   Court            (Comm)
                                                   No.187-                                      342 of 2019
                                                   S/10/B/TS/JPP/CS-162
                                                   dated 29.08.2012
                                              3.   Award dated 12.03.2019      Patiala    House OMP
                                                   pertaining to Letter No.    Courts           (Comm)
                                                   187-S/B/TS/JPP/CS-162                        127 of 2019
                                                   dated 14.09.2012
                                              4.   Award dated 12.03.2019      Patiala    House OMP
                                                   pertaining    to   Letter   Courts           (Comm)
                                                   No.187-                                      128 of 2019
                                                   S/10/B/TS/JPP/CS-162
                                                   dated 01.12.2011 and
                                                   Letter           No.187-
                                                   S/1017/TS/JPP/CS-162
                                                   dated 22.02.2012
                                            "

5. Out of the four OMPs, the first two are pending before the Delhi High Court and the OMPs at serial nos.3 and 4 are pending before the Patiala House Courts. The present transfer petitions have been moved seeking transfer of the cases pending in the Patiala House Courts to this Court.

6. Heard ld. counsels for the parties. This court had the occasion to consider the consequence of multiple arbitral tribunals, multiple awards and multiple challenges in Gammon India Ltd. & Anr. v. NHAI [OMP 680/2011 (New No. O.M.P. (COMM) 392/2020), decided on 23rd June,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:25.01.2021 22:26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.01.2021 12:20:46

2020]. It was observed therein as under:

"44. The issue of multiplicity in arbitral proceedings also needs to be effectively dealt with to ensure that a long-drawn arbitral journey, as in the present case, is avoided. Parties to arbitration are expected to adhere to a bona fide discipline of use of arbitral processes. There appears to be a clear need for streamlining the same. The Delhi High Court has issued several practice directions under the Act. One such direction when petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are filed, it is mandatory for the party to mention that no other petition on the same cause of action was filed. In an attempt to further avoid multiplicity of Tribunals and inconsistent/contradictory awards, as has arisen in the present case, the following directions are issued:

i. In every petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, "Section 34 petition"), the parties approaching the Court ought to disclose whether there are any other proceedings pending or adjudicated in respect of the same contract or series of contracts and if so, what is the stage of the said proceedings and the forum where the said proceedings are pending or have been adjudicated.

ii. At the time when a Section 34 petition is being heard, parties ought to disclose as to whether any other Section 34 petition in respect of the same contract is pending and if so, seek disposal of the said petitions together in order to avoid conflicting findings.

iii. In petitions seeking appointment of an Arbitrator/Constitution of an Arbitral

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:25.01.2021 22:26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.01.2021 12:20:46

Tribunal, parties ought to disclose if any Tribunal already stands constituted for adjudication of the claims of either party arising out of the same contract or the same series of contracts. If such a Tribunal has already been constituted, an endeavor can be made by the arbitral institution or the High Court under Section 11, to refer the matter to the same Tribunal or a single Tribunal in order to avoid conflicting and irreconcilable findings.

iv. Appointing authorities under contracts consisting of arbitration clauses ought to avoid appointment or constitution of separate Arbitrators/Arbitral Tribunals for different claims/disputes arising from the same contract, or same series of contracts."

7. There is no doubt as to the fact that the parties in all the petitions are the same. The contract concerned is also the same, however, the liquidated damages imposed are for different claims and four separate awards have been passed. This Court is of the opinion that the validity and otherwise of the imposition of liquidated damages ought to be comprehensively considered in one case, inasmuch as if the same are adjudicated before different forums, there is a possibility of there being contradictory findings.

8. Since the background of the liquidated damages may be similar in nature, it is deemed appropriate to transfer the two petitions pending before the Patiala House Courts i.e., OMP (Comm) No.127/2019 & 128/2019, to this Court, to be heard and disposed of along with OMP (Comm) No.352/2019 & 342/2019. The said petitions are stated to be listed before the appropriate Bench on 1st March, 2021. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to summon the records of the two cases pending before the Patiala

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:25.01.2021 22:26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.01.2021 12:20:46

House Courts and list the same along with the matters pending before this Court on 1st March, 2021.

9. The present petitions are disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 25, 2021/dk/T

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:25.01.2021 22:26

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter