Delhi High Court - Orders
Md. Usman vs National Highway Authority Of India on 25 January, 2019
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 777/2019
MD. USMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Jayant Mehta, Mr Angad Mehta
and Ms Bani Brar, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Ankur Mittal, Advocate for
NHAI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 25.01.2019 CM No.3454/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 777/2019 & CM No. 3455/2019
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 02.01.2019, whereby the respondent (NHAI) has raised a demand of ₹26.80 crores and further called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be blacklisted. It is seen that the aforesaid demand of ₹26.80 crores comprises of the principal amount of ₹12.99 crores and the penalty/interest of ₹13.81 crores. The impugned notice also records that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner by the concerned Project Directors for demanding the aforesaid sum. Mr Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states, on instructions, that no notices have been received by the petitioner.
3. It is further stated that the demands made are disputed on two grounds. First, the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a claim for remission of the amount payable on account of force majeure events, which has not been contested by the NHAI. Second, the petitioner also disputes the levy of penalty/interest as being in terrorem and contrary to provisions of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
4. Insofar as the disputes relating to demand of penalty and other amounts are concerned, the same are contractual disputes. It is seen that the agreement entered into between the parties includes an arbitration clause and such disputes are required to be resolved by arbitral proceedings. In the circumstances, it would not be apposite for this Court to entertain such disputes.
5. The only question that remains to be considered by this Court relates to the proposed action of blacklisting the petitioner. The petitioner further states that even pending the decision regarding blacklisting, the NHAI has put the petitioner's name in abeyance, thus, disqualifying the petitioner from participating in any tenders.
6. Issue notice, limited to the aforesaid aspect. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and seeks time to file a counter affidavit. Let the same be filed within a period of 10 days from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of one week, thereafter.
7. It is clarified that in the meanwhile, the petitioner is not precluded from initiating the arbitral proceedings in accordance with the agreement between the petitioner.
8. List on 08.03.2019.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 25, 2019/MK