Delhi High Court
Cg Tollway Limited vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 23 November, 2021
$~28, 29 & 30 [2021]
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23.11.2021
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2021 & Cav.66/2021, CM Nos.41571-
72/2021
KISHANGARH GULABPURA TOLLWAY
LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ashish Batra, Mr. Sarthak
Sachdev, Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, Mr.
Apoorv Agrawal and Ms. Terresa R.
Daulat, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Umang
Gupta, Mr. Varun Chandiok, Ms. Riya
Seth and Ms. Shweta Chauhan, Advs.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2021 & Cav.67/2021, CM Nos.41573-
74/2021
UDAIPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ashish Batra, Mr. Sarthak Sachdev,
Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, Mr. Apoorv
Agrawal and Ms. Terresa R. Daulat,
Advs.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:25.11.2021
12:15:27
Through: Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Umang
Gupta, Mr. Varun Chandiok, Ms. Riya
Seth and Ms. Shweta Chauhan, Advs.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 148/2021 & Cav.68/2021, CM Nos.41575-
76/2021
CG TOLLWAY LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ashish Batra, Mr. Sarthak Sachdev,
Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, Mr. Apoorv
Agrawal and Ms. Terresa R. Daulat,
Advs.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Umang
Gupta, Mr. Varun Chandiok, Ms. Riya
Seth and Ms. Shweta Chauhan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
Cav. No.66/2021 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2021
Cav. No.67/2021 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2021
Cav. No.68/2021 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 148/2021
1. Since counsel for the respondent/NHAI has entered appearance in the
above-captioned appeals, the caveat stands discharged.
CM No.41572/2021 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2021
CM No.41574/2021 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2021
CM No.41576/2021 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 148/2021
2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:25.11.2021
12:15:27
FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2021 & CM No.41571/2021
FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2021 & CM No.41573/2021
FAO(OS) (COMM) 148/2021 & CM No.41575/2021
3. The above-captioned appeals are preferred against a common judgment
dated 9.11.2021, passed by the learned single judge.
3.1. Via the impugned judgment, the appellants' applications preferred
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, "the
Act"] were dismissed, with liberty given to the appellants to approach the
Rajasthan High Court for appropriate relief.
3.2. Mr. Vikram Nankani and Mr. Saurabh Kipral, leaned senior counsels,
who appear on behalf of the appellants in the above-captioned appeals, say
that this Court has jurisdiction. For this purpose, they have drawn our attention
to Clause 44.3.1(iv) of the Concession Agreement.
3.3. Based on the aforesaid clause, Mr. Nankani and Mr. Kirpal submit that
since the seat of arbitration is located at Delhi, this Court would have
jurisdiction.
3.4. Mr. Nankani and Mr. Kirpal say that the other facet which attracts the
jurisdiction of this Court is the fact that the respondent resides in Delhi.
4. Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the
respondents, on instruction of Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, contends that this
court has no jurisdiction.
4.1 According to Mr. Gupta, since the appellants had approached the
Rajasthan High Court, in an earlier round of litigation, the appropriate court
would be that court and not this Court.
5. However, counsel for both the sides agree that the impugned judgment
sets out no reason as to why the learned single judge held that the applications
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:25.11.2021
12:15:27
filed under Section 9 of the Act could not be entertained by him.
5.1. Mr. Nankani and Mr. Kirpal have also brought to our notice the
judgement dated 25.8.2021, passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11042/2020, whereby, inter alia, an
interim direction has been issued (which obtains up-until-now), in favour of
the appellants. In this context, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 38(v)
of the said judgement [as modified by the order dated 26.8.2021].
6. Given the aforesaid position, the impugned judgment is set aside.
6.1. The appellants' Section 9 petitions filed under the Act will be placed
before the learned single judge, on 26.11.2021.
6.2. Up-until-then, the directions contained in paragraph 38(v) of the
judgement of the Rajasthan High Court, dated 25.8.2021 [as modified by the
order dated 26.8.2021], will continue to operate.
6.3. The learned single judge will be at liberty to pass appropriate directions
qua the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment of the Rajasthan High
Court, after hearing both the sides.
7. Needless to add that, nothing stated hereinabove will impact the merits
of the matter(s).
8. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently,
pending applications shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2021/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:25.11.2021
12:15:27
