Delhi High Court
Maxxcab Wires And Cables Private ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 30 July, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 394/2023
MAXXCAB WIRES AND CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Ojha, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC
with Ms. Pinky Pawar, Adv. with Mr. Sumit
Kumar Verma, SMM/G NR
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 30.07.2024
CCP(O) 58/2024
1. Mr. Kamlesh Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks
initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for having
committed disobedience of orders dated 12 December 2023 read with
order dated 6 December 2023 passed by this Court.
2. The orders dated 6 December 2023 and 12 December 2023
read thus:
Order dated 6 December 2023
"O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 394/2023
The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act with the following prayers:
"a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 394/2023 Page 1 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:31.07.2024 Signing Date:31.07.2024
16:06:33 16:05:59
for interim measures of protection in respect to the
Recovery against Warranty Rejection Advice dated 06th of
September 2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 until the finalization of lis.
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the
further execution, implementation and enforcement of
Recovery against Warranty Rejection Advice dated 06th of
September 2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996."
Issue notice. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned central
government standing counsel for UOI has accepted the notice.
Learned counsel submits that the material supplied was of sub-
standard quality and therefore the same were rejected and the
petitioner was asked to replace the same. However, the petitioner
failed to replace the same within 60 days and therefore the
recovery of Rs.3,30,49,000/- has been raised against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
inspection process was wrong. Learned counsel also submits that
there is a due amount of around Rs.15 crores against the
respondent and the respondent may make the balance payment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the petitioner, the respondent may
release the pending amount after deducting the amount on account
of rejection of the material.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to take
instructions.
List on 12.12.2023."
Order dated 12 December 2023
"O.M.P(I) (COMM) 394/2023
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.
Let the reply be filed within 30 days. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be
filed within 30 days thereafter.
List on 22.02.2024.
In the meantime, in terms of the order dated 06.12.2023, the
recovery proceedings against the petitioner may not be affected."
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 394/2023 Page 2 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:31.07.2024 Signing Date:31.07.2024
16:06:33 16:05:59
3. Though the order dated 12 December 2023 restrains the
respondent from taking any recovery proceedings against the
petitioner in terms of order dated 6 December 2023, there is no
reference in the order dated 6 December 2023 to recovery
proceedings.
4. Nonetheless, even if one proceeds on the basis of the order
dated 12 December 2023, it is not the petitioner's case that any
recovery proceedings have been initiated against it.
5. Mr. Ojha has referred to notice dated 27 May 2024 issued by
the respondent to the petitioner, temporarily de-listing it. This,
according to him, constitutes contempt of the order dated 12
December 2023.
6. I cannot agree.
7. The restraint against the respondent was from taking recovery
proceedings against the petitioner. There is no restraint against de-
listing. Irrespective of whether the de-listing of the petitioner was or
was not legal and proper, it cannot be treated as contemptuous of the
order dated 12 December 2023.
8. As such, the contempt petition is dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JULY 30, 2024/dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Digitally Signed
KUMAR O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 394/2023 Page 3 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:31.07.2024 Signing Date:31.07.2024
16:06:33 16:05:59
