Delhi High Court - Orders
Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation And ... on 24 June, 2020
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2241/2020
MEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,
Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr.
Advs. with Mr. Rajiv S. Dwivedi, Adv.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Garima
Prashad, and Mr. Harsh Pichara, Advs. for
SDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 24.06.2020 CM. APPL. No. 13344/2020(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
CM. APPL. Nos. 13343 (exemption from court fee)
3. Exemption allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner will file the duly sworn/attested affidavit and the requisite Court fee within 72 hours from the date of resumption of the regular functioning of this Court.
4. The application stands disposed-off.
REVIEW PET. 107/20205. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
6. This Review Petition seeks modification of the order dated 12.06.2020 on the ground that there are two errors: (i) that once force majeure has been made applicable by the court from 19.02.2020, then the Rs.20 crores weekly payment by the petitioner would stand suspended and as a corollary, the outstanding amount of Rs.115.04 crores, as recorded in this Court's order dated 02.03.2020, would be reduced by roughly Rs.38 crores (i.e. amount computed for 19th February to 2nd March 2020 @Rs.20 crores per week) . It is contended that Rs.115.04 crores as recorded, was the sum total of the earlier weekly payments, claimed as dues by the respondent Corporation. Thus, after deducting Rs.38 crores from Rs.115.04 crores, only an amount of Rs.77 crores would be payable. Of this Rs.68.05 crores stand paid, leaving a payable balance of Rs.8.99 crores. It is contended that nevertheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the respondent a larger amount of Rs.15 crores by way of a Bank Draft, instead of the Rs.77.04 as directed by the order dated 12.6.2020 and (ii) that once the force majeure clause was made applicable by MORTH from 19.02.2020, as recorded by this court, then that day becomes the cut-off date for suspension of all subsequent contractual obligations.
7. The court, however, is not persuaded by either of the said contentions and does not find any error on the face of the record to review its order. Para 30 of the order clearly reasons that the amount, which was admittedly agreed between the parties as payable as of 02.03.2020 was Rs.115.04 crores. No objection was raised by the petitioner apropos the said quantum either at that stage or at any subsequent stage. An issue is being raised now only on the basis of this court's order of 12.6.2020. Furthermore, the petitioner had never contended at any earlier stage, of it being prejudiced by the force majeure condition from 19.2.2020 till 2.3.2020, as invoked by MORTH, or that its revenue/toll collection had reduced in any manner during that period because of the force majeure condition. Indeed, the petitioner itself referred to the 19.2.2020 Circular of MORTH for the first time, a full month later, on 19.3.2020. The national lockdown took effect from midnight of 24th/25th March, thereby virtually barring movement of motor vehicular traffic. It is only as a result of this bar that the revenue collection of the petitioner could be said to have been affected. Resultantly, only the recurring weekly payment after 2nd March could be said to be affected. The acknowledged outstanding amount of Rs.115.04 crores cannot be sought to be revised now, because it was not dependent on fresh revenue collection but were dues of many weeks, prior to 2nd March. If the petitioner had an any reservation apropos the same i.e. such previous amount of Rs.115.04 crores, having already been affected by force majeure disability, it could have brought the same to the notice of the court or expressed its inability to pay the same. The acknowledged dues of Rs.115.04 could have been a subject matter of review on 2.3.2020 only if the petitioner had averred or shown that motor vehicular traffic between 19th February and 2nd March had already been affected on date. Surely the petitioner would have known of the ground reality/toll collections/traffic volume, between 19.2.20 and 2.3.20. Therefore, for the petitioner to now submit that the force majeure had affected its toll collection before 2nd March, is untenable. The order of 12.6.2020 is clear apropos the amount due before 2nd March and the recurring weekly dues thereafter. It does not call for any review or modification.
8. The Court finds no merit in the review petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the counsels through email.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J JUNE 24, 2020/RW