Delhi High Court - Orders
National Highways Authority Of India vs Mep Hyderabad Bangalore Toll Road Pvt. ... on 21 February, 2023
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 80/2023
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi and Mr.
Nirmal Prasad, Advs.
versus
MEP HYDERABAD BANGALORE TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Topesh Kumar Singh, Mr.
Sukant Vikram and Mr. Aditya
Pratap Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 21.02.2023 I.A.3452/2023 (Ex. Filing Typed Copies Dim Document), I.A.3454/2023 (Ex. Filing Certified Original Copies) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications shall stand disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 80/2023 and I.A.3453/2023 (Ex. Filing Certified Copy of Arbitral Record), I.A.3455/2023 (U.S.34(4) Arbitration & Conciliation Act), I.A.3456/2023 (Delay in Re-filing)
1. Notice. Since the Respondent is duly represented by learned counsel, let a reply be filed, if so chosen and advised, within a period of three weeks from today.
2. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [the Act] assails the validity of the final Award dated 14 October 2022. It becomes pertinent to note that the challenge is essentially Signature Not Verified laid in respect of the ultimate reliefs granted by the Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:24.02.2023 18:29:32 Tribunal in respect of the Claims 1, 4 and 7. Conscious of the limitations which operate insofar as the Section 34 power is concerned and which clearly does not contemplate either a modification of the Award or a remit to the Tribunal, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the present challenge essentially would be referable to Section 34(4) of the Act.
3. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel has, at this stage, referred the Court to the findings returned by the Tribunal in respect of Claim No. 1 and submits that once the default in payment of concession fee had been established and accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal, interest should have been levied from the date of default rather than 01 August 2018, bearing in mind Clause 39.4 of the Concession Agreement. These and some of the other grounds which are raised in the Section 34 petition would warrant further consideration.
4. The Court also takes on board the statement made by learned counsel appearing for respective parties, who submit that respective sides have independently moved Section 33 applications which are still pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court is also apprised that the Respondent has, in addition to the above, also made an application under Section 13(2) of the Act which too is pending consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal.
5. Let the matter be called again on 24.04.2023.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 21, 2023 SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:24.02.2023 18:29:32