Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ongc Limited vs Jv Of M/S Megha Engineering And ... on 4 December, 2020

Author: Rekha Palli

Bench: Rekha Palli

                          $~14                                            Via Video Conferencing

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      O.M.P. (COMM) 483/2020
                                 ONGC LIMITED                            ..... Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandarajog, Senior
                                                         Advocate with Mr. Amitesh Chandra
                                                         Mishra & Mr.Abhishek C. Mishra,
                                                         Advocates

                                                    versus

                                 JV OF M/S MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                                 LTD. AND M/S A PLUS PROJECTS AND TECH (P) LTD. (MEIL-
                                 A PLUS)                                   ..... Respondent
                                                Through: Mr. Parvesh Buttan & Mr. Fahad
                                                         Imtiaz, Advocates

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
                                         ORDER

% 04.12.2020

1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, assailing the Award dated 19.10.2020.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award is wholly perverse and suffers from patent illegality as the learned Tribunal has proceeded to allow the claims of the respondent wholly on the basis of surmises and conjectures. To support his contention, he draws my attention to the relevant extracts of the Award, wherein one of the respondent's claim for equipment lying idle has been allowed by placing reliance only on the certificate of a chartered accountant by overlooking the fact that the said equipment was not even available at the site.

3. Issue notice. Mr. Parvesh Buttan, Advocate accepts notice and prays for four weeks' time to file a reply. Rejoinder thereto be filed within four weeks thereafter.

4. Both sides will also file a short-written synopsis not running into more than seven pages, along with the relevant extracts of the Award and the judgments on which they propose to rely.

5. List on 06.94.2021.

6. This is an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking stay of the impugned Award.

7. Issue Notice. Mr. Parvesh Buttan, Advocate accepts notice and submits, on instructions, that in case the petitioner deposits the awarded amount along with up-to-date interest before this Court, he has no objection to the operation of the impugned award being stayed during the pendency of the petition.

8. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent as also the fact that this Court is yet to examine the legality of the Award, the application is allowed by directing that, subject to the petitioner depositing the awarded amount along with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of eight weeks, the operation of the impugned Award shall remain stayed during the pendency of the petition.

9. Needless to state, in case the respondent moves an application seeking release of this amount, the same will be considered on its own merits.

10. The application is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

REKHA PALLI, J.

DECEMBER 4, 2020 tp Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MANJU BHATT Signing Date:04.12.2020 22:08:26