Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Telecommunication Consultants India ... vs Mbl Infrastructure Ltd on 13 April, 2021

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh

                          $~21
                          *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +       FAO(OS) (COMM) 58/2021
                                  TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD
                                                                                   ..... Appellant
                                                 Through: Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.
                                                          with Mr. Nikhilesh Krishanan, Adv.
                                                 versus
                                  MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD                       ..... Respondent
                                                 Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Mr.
                                                          Bankim Garg, Advs.
                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
                                           ORDER

% 13.04.2021 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] CM APPL. No.14263/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

FAO(OS) (COMM) No.58/2021 & CM Appl. No.14262/2021

2. One of the grounds that Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the appellant, raises, is that, the learned Single Judge could not have modified the award. In other words, the argument is that the learned Single judge could have, possibly, set aside the impugned award in the given facts but not modified it.

2.1 In support of this plea, Mr. Singh relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., 2006 (11) SCC 181 and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 157.

3. Broadly, according to Mr. Singh, the learned Single Judge, via the impugned judgement dated 10.02.2021, has modified claim nos. 1 and 7.

4. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, who appears for the respondent, refutes this submission, advanced by Mr. Singh.

5. We are of the view that this is a case where the parties could attempt a settlement via mediation with regard to the claims and counter-claims obtaining in the matter.

6. It is not in dispute that the principal employer in respect of the subject work was HSRDC. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had sub- contracted the work to the respondent.

6.1 It is not disputed that the appellant was entitled to retain 2.5% of the amount that it was to receive from HSRDC. In other words, the respondent was to receive 97.5% of the amount, albeit, subject to the statutory and contractual deductions.

7. The claims and counter claims veer around the aforesaid aspects, which, in a sense, is the core of the matter.

8. Mr. Singh and Ms. Salwan say that they will have no objection if this Court were to refer the matter to a mediator appointed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre [in short the "Centre"].

9. Accordingly, authorized representative of the parties and/or their respective counsels will present themselves, before the mediator, appointed by the Centre, albeit, via videoconferencing mechanism, on 22.04.2021 at 3.30 p.m.

10. The mediator will render the report before the next date of hearing.

11. List the matter before the Court on 25.05.2021.

12. At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Singh that the execution proceedings have been taken by the respondent, which are, numbered as OMP(EMF.)(COMM) No.115/2020.

13. Ms. Salwan has also screenshared the order dated 17.03.2021 passed in the execution proceedings, whereby, a direction has been issued, which requires the appellant to deposit the amount, as awarded, [which, in effect, would mean the amount modified via the impugned judgment], within three weeks of the said order.

14. The execution proceedings, as per the said order, are listed on 20.04.2021.

15. According to us, the matter needs further examination. Therefore, in the meanwhile, for the moment, the appellant will deposit Rs.8.50 crores with the Registry of this Court within three weeks from today.

16. Subject to the said amount being deposited, for the moment, the execution proceedings will remain stayed.

17. In the event, the said amount is deposited, the Registry will invest the same in an interest-bearing fixed deposit maintained within a nationalized bank.

18. It is made clear, if the aforesaid amount is not deposited, by the appellant, the interim order shall stand, automatically, dissolved.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J APRIL 13, 2021/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any FAO(OS) (COMM) 58/2021 3/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:16.04.2021 12:55:41