Delhi High Court - Orders
Ntpc Limited vs Ritwik Project Pvt. Ltd on 14 October, 2020
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P (COMM) 503/2020 & I.As. 9336/2020, 9337/2020
NTPC LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr.Viplav
Acharya, Mr.Harshit Singh,
Mr.Krishnesh Bapat and Mr.Shikhar
Kishore, Advs.
versus
RITWIK PROJECT PVT. LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Arunabh Chowdhury, Mr.Abhay
N. Das, Mr.Ajay Gupta, Mr.Vaibhav
Tomar and Mr.Dechen Lachungpa,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER
% 14.10.2020 This matter is being heard through video-conferencing. I.A. 9336/2020 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
OMP (COMM) 503/2020 and I.A. 9337/2020 (for stay)
1. Issue notice. Mr.Abhay N. Das, Advocate, Accepts notice for the respondent.
2. Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, seeks stay of the Award dated January 27, 2020.
3. Ms. Acharya states that after the Award was rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on January 27, 2020, the petitioner had represented to the respondent showing its inclination to release 75% of the awarded amount in terms of the NITI Ayog notification. Regrettably, the respondent had insisted upon release of the said amount without any security. She states, the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal clearly unsustainable and need to be interfered by this Court in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, submits that the contract between the parties is an on-going contract wherein the respondent has submitted running bills, which are pending payment with the petitioner. He states that the money to be released by the petitioner to the respondent in terms of the award can be secured through the money to be paid against those running bills. In this regard he has relied upon on an order dated February 26, 2020 passed by this Court in OMP (COMM) 123/2020. According to Mr. Nigam, the aforesaid order being a precedent, the same need to be followed in this case as well. That apart, Mr. Nigam also states that several bank guarantees for approximately, sum of Rs.100 crores have been furnished by the respondent in favour of the petitioner herein, as such the money is secured.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Acharya has tried to distinguish the facts of the case as relied upon with the facts of this case inasmuch as in the said case there was already an order passed by this Court for release of the amount. In fact, thereafter a statement was made by the petitioner in that case for the release of the amount in favour of the respondent therein. Ms. Acharya further states that furnishing of performance bank guarantees cannot be related to the awarded amount by the Arbitral Tribunal as the said performance bank guarantees are for the performance of the contract and those would be invoked in the eventuality the respondent fails to perform the contract. Further the order was passed when the Section 34 petition was filed before the Court of Faridabad and an issue of jurisdiction was pending consideration.
6. Having heard the Ld. Sr. Counsels for the parties, suffice it would be to state that I am not in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Nigam. No doubt, the award of the Arbitral Tribunal is in the nature of a money decree but even if the amount is deposited in the Court, the same can be released on the respondent furnishing security.
7. So it follows, that the petitioner shall deposit 75% of the awarded amount within a period of eight weeks with the Registrar General of this Court. On such deposit, there shall be a stay of the impugned award dated January 27, 2020.
8. As an oral request is made by Mr. Nigam for the release of the deposited amount, the amount so deposited by NTPC shall be released in favour of the respondent herein within three weeks thereafter on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee of a Scheduled Bank, for the equivalent amount in favour of the Registrar General of this Court. The Bank Guarantee shall be kept alive by the respondent till the pendency of these proceedings. The deposit of amount by the petitioner and release of the amount in favour of the respondent shall be subject to the outcome of this petition.
9. List before Joint Registrar on December 22, 2020 for verification and acceptance of the Bank Guarantee.
10. Parties to file their written submissions along with the judgments they want to rely upon within six weeks.
11. List the matter for hearing on January 28, 2021.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J OCTOBER 14, 2020/bh