Delhi High Court - Orders
Ghv (India) Private Limited vs Ircon International Limited & Ors on 28 July, 2020
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~9 and 10 (original side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP(I)(COMM) 140/2020
GHV (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Adv.
Versus
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
and Ms. Nazia Parveen, Adv. for UBI
Mr. Suman Doval, Adv. for defendant
no. 2
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv. for
defendant no. 3
AND
+ OMP(I)(COMM) 141/2020
GHV (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Adv.
Versus
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
and Ms. Nazia Parveen, Adv. for UBI
Mr. Suman Doval, Adv. for defendant
no. 2
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv. for
defendant no. 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 28.07.2020
(Video Conferencing)
OMP(I)(COMM) 140/2020 & OMP(I)(COMM) 141/2020 Page 1 of 3
OMP(I)(COMM) 140/2020 & 141/2020
1. Mr. Suman Doval has drawn my attention to a communication, dated 16th June, 2020, addressed by the petitioner to the respondents, which is not on record. He submits that, as per the said communication, which was issued by the petitioner, when the Covid crisis was at its peak, the petitioner had sought time, to complete the remainder of the work till 31st January, 2021. He further submits, on instructions, that his client would be willing to grant the said accommodation to the petitioner, and to refrain from encashing the bank guarantees forming the subject matter of these proceedings, till then. He also submits that in case the petitioner is aggrieved that the entire area of land, on which the petitioner was required to work, was not handed over to the petitioner, his client would de-scope "the work", so as to delete, from the work originally required to be performed by the petitioner, the part thereof which was to be carried out over the land, which has not been provided to the petitioner, till date.
2. Mr. Suman Doval is directed to place, on affidavit, the exact offer, which he is extending to the petitioner, on or before 31st July, 2020, by way of email to the Court Master, with a copy marked to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The email, when received, shall be taken on record and retained in the miscellaneous folder.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a OMP(I)(COMM) 140/2020 & OMP(I)(COMM) 141/2020 Page 2 of 3 response to the said affidavit, making it clear as to whether the petitioner is willing to comply with the offer extended by the respondents and if not, pointing out the hindrances in that regard. The said affidavit may also be filed by way of email to the Court Master, at least twenty-four hours in advance of the next date of hearing and shall be placed in the miscellaneous folder.
4. Needless to say, learned counsel would ensure that copies of the aforesaid affidavits are also emailed to each other.
5. It is made clear that if the parties are not able to arrive at some kind of a settlement, regarding the completion of the work, this Court will proceed to hear this matter and pass appropriate orders, whether interim or final, on the next date of hearing. In case, after exchange of affidavits, it is found that there are still any creases in the conciliatory fabric, the learned counsel would speak to each other and attempt to iron them out before the next date of hearing.
6. As it is hoped that the parties would arrive at a solution, the matter shall not be reflected as part heard in the list. However, in case the parties do not arrive at a solution, arguments would continue from the point, where they left off.
7. Renotify on 17th August, 2020. Till then, interim orders to continue.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
JULY 28, 2020/r.bararia OMP(I)(COMM) 140/2020 & OMP(I)(COMM) 141/2020 Page 3 of 3