Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Agroh Kodinar Veraval Highways Pvt. Ltd vs National Highways Authority Of India on 2 May, 2022

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                          $~50
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 136/2022 & I.A. 6727/2022
                               AGROH KODINAR VERAVAL HIGHWAYS PVT.
                               LTD.                                    ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Abhishek
                                                          Gupta, Mr. Suyash Gupta, Mr.
                                                          Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi
                                                          Sood, Mr. P Harold, Mr. Amol
                                                          Acharya & Mr. Rayadurgam, Advs.
                                              versus

                                NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
                                INDIA                             ..... Respondent
                                             Through: Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                                             ORDER
                          %                  02.05.2022

                          1.    Issue notice.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that the respondent be restrained from taking any coercive or precipitative action in terms of the communication dated 07.04.2022. The perusal of the said communication indicates that the respondent had cautioned the petitioner that if it failed to fulfil its 'commitment to complete the 27 km PQC work by 30.04.2022', the respondent would be forced to terminate the Concession Agreement along with any other related agreement by issuing a termination notice in terms of Clause 31.1.2 of the Concession Agreement. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent does not own Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:04.05.2022 and/or possess the unencumbered stretch of 27 kms of land on which the petitioner is called upon to execute certain works.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent disputes the same. He states that there is no impediment in the petitioner executing the works on the said stretch of 27 kms of land. He requests further time to file a reply to the petition. Let the same be filed within a period of one week from today.

5. The said reply shall be affirmed and supported by the affidavit of the concerned Project Director. He shall also specifically affirm whether the respondent has unhindered/unencumbered possession of the site/ROW.

6. List on 19.05.2022.

7. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.





                                                                                VIBHU BAKHRU, J
                          MAY 2, 2022
                          Ch                              Click here to check corrigendum, if any




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:04.05.2022