Delhi High Court - Orders
Ambient Land Holding Ltd vs Splendor Landbase Ltd & Anr on 26 September, 2023
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 263/2021
AMBIENT LAND HOLDING LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avinash Kumar Lakhanpal, Mr.
Dhiraj Kumar and Mr. Piyush
Lakhanpal, Advs.
versus
SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Ms. Shweta
Arora, Mr. Saksham Thareja and Ms.
Aashna Bhola, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 26.09.2023 IA No. 11206/2021 (for interim relief)
1. Vide order dated 20.07.2022, this court, inter alia, directed as under:-
14. In support of his prayer for stay of operation of the impugned award, Mr. Sibal draws attention to the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. S.L. Arora and Company reported as (2010) 3 SCC 690, in which the following observations appear in relation to the concept of 'interest' ;
"9. Payment of interest arises in different circumstances. It can be the consideration paid by a borrower to a lender for use of the money lent or made available by the lender. It can be the return given by a bank, financial institution or a company on amounts deposited or invested with them by a customer or constituent. It can be the compensation paid bv a person who withholds or defaults in pavins an amount or in discharging a liability, when it is due and payable. Interest may be payable in pursuance of a contract, or a provision in a statute, or the fiat of a court or tribunal. It is usually quantified in terms of a percentage of the "principal" or the "investment" or the "amount of liability".
Interest unless otherwise specified, refers to simple interest, that This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 01:32:30 is, interest paid on only the principal and not on any accrued interest. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Mr. Sibal contends that in view of the foregoing observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, award of 'interest' on the capita/ invested by respondent No.l in the project or on the term loan taken by respondent No.l, at a time when the petitioner was nowhere in the picture, and which sums were not monies lent or made available by respondent No.l to the petitioner, is wholly misconceived; and a conclusion that no reasonable person would reach.
16. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made no profit from the project under the DMA, since the contractual relationship between the parties ended in a very short period of about 06 months; and accordingly, even on purely equitable considerations, asking the petitioner to securitise the awarded sum would be unfair. 17. Furthermore, it is noticed that when in para 84 of the award, the arbitral tribunal purports to grant to the petitioner adjustment of the sum of about Rs. 1.57 crores paid under the DMA against the interest on the term loan aggregating to about Rs. 2.19 crores, it is implicit that the arbitral tribunal is, in effect, holding that the said sum of about Rs. 1.57 crores claimed by way of claim No. 1 is money that belongs to the petitioner. But then, on the other hand, the arbitral tribunal rejects claim No. 1, thereby contradicting its decision on counter-claim No. 2.
18. Issue notice on the application.
19. Counsel as above, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents; and seeks time to file reply.
20. Let reply be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
21. In view of the submissions made, this court is satisfied that pending consideration of the challenge, the operation of the arbitral award requires to be stayed, without requirement of any deposit or securitisation of the award, at this stage.
22. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned award is stayed, till the next date of hearing.
23. Re-notify on 14th November 2022."
2. Since O.M.P. (COMM) 263/2021 is ripe for hearing, respective counsel for the parties are in agreement that the aforesaid interim order be This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 01:32:30 continued till the disposal of the present petition. It is directed accordingly.
3. The present application stands disposed of. IA No. 11209/2021 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition)
4. This is an application for condonation of delay of 9 days in re-filing the petition.
5. Having considered the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and accordingly, the delay of 09 days in re-filing the petition is condoned.
IA No. 11208/2021 (seeking permission to file additional documents)
6. After some hearing, respective counsel for the parties are in agreement that the present petition be decided on the basis of the documents forming part of the arbitral award.
7. In the circumstances, the present application is dismissed, granting liberty to the parties to rely upon the relevant portion of the arbitral award in support of their submissions.
O.M.P. (COMM) 263/2021
8. List for hearing on 22.01.2024.
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2023/r This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2023 at 01:32:31