Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Velji Ratna Sorathia Infra Pvt. Ltd vs Airports Authority Of India on 13 May, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 171/2025
M/S VELJI RATNA SORATHIA INFRA PVT. LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Kanika Singh & Mr. Aridaman
Raghuwanshi, Advs.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Archit Mishra, Mr. Gagan
Kochar (Sr. Manager), Ms. Pragya
Bansal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 13.05.2025 I.A. 12091/2025
1. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applicant(s) shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules before the next date of hearing.
3. The application is disposed of.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 171/2025
4. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the following reliefs:
i. pass an injunction order staying the operation of letter dated 05.05.2025 issued by respondent, or in the alternative ii. restraining the Respondent from taking any coercive steps pursuant to letter dated 05.05.2025
1. In the present case, the petitioner was awarded the work for This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 00:55:34 'Construction of Parallel Taxi Track (PTT) and Rapid Exit Taxiway (RET) at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi' with the stipulated start date of 05.01.2024 and completion of 04.01.2025.
2. The petitioner mobilised its resources towards the said work, but was unable to get security clearances from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). Hence, the work inter alia could not be performed. It is stated that the petitioner repeatedly informed the respondent regarding the same, but still could not get the required clearances.
3. On 05.05.2025, the petitioner called upon the respondent to withdraw the work from the petitioner, despite the fact that the respondent had extended the completion date of the work till 04.06.2025.
4. Thereafter, the respondent vide its letter dated 05.05.2025 terminated the agreement between the parties.
5. The agreement has Arbitration Clause, being Clause No.25 of GCC.
6. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that this is a case where the petitioner was unable to perform the contract due to the acts of commission and omission by a 3rd party and not a case where the petitioner was incapable of doing the contract. He further states that Clause 3 (ii) of the Agreement executed between the parties, mandates that the Engineer in-Charge will give a notice of 07 days in writing to the petitioner and thereafter, the Engineer in-Charge has to come to a finding, whether the contractor stopped the work with or without the reasonable cause.
7. Per Contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in O.M.P.(I.)(COMM) 386/2022 titled Meinhardt Australia Pty Ltd. vs. Airport Authority of India & Ors and more particularly, para 13, which reads as under:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 00:55:34 "13. Undisputedly the PBG in the present case is unconditional and stands forfeited in terms of the final action notice. The Court notes that this is not a case where fraud is either alleged or established by the petitioner. The Court also finds itself unable to discern the existence of any special equity that may be recognized to exist or operate in favour of the petitioner."
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Para 4 of Meinhardt Australia (supra) is also relevant and the same reads as under:
"4. The final action of termination was preceded by the issuance of a show cause notice dated 21 October 2022. The aforesaid notice and the validity of the action of AAI formed subject matter of O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 315/2022. While considering the aforesaid petition, a learned Judge of the Court on 10 November 2022 had taken on board the statement made by counsel appearing for AAI who had submitted that in the event the contract is finally terminated, they would not take any action consequent thereto for a period of one week in order to enable the petitioner to take its remedies. The aforesaid statement was duly recorded and accepted by the Court and the petition thereafter disposed of with liberty being reserved to the petitioner here to take appropriate remedies in the event the contract came to be ultimately terminated."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 00:55:34
10. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that in the case of Meinhardt Australia (supra), the invocation of the Bank Guarantee was preceded by a show-cause-notice for termination of the contract and thereafter, the action for invocation of the Bank Guarantee was taken. However, in the present case, Clause 3 (ii) of the Agreement mandates a finding in writing by the Engineer in-Charge regarding the fact whether the petitioner was unable to perform the work with or without the reasonable cause.
11. The same has not been so done. Hence, the letter of 05.05.2025 is prima facie not as per the procedure prescribed under the Contract.
12. I am of the view that the matter needs consideration. Issue notice. Mr. Rai, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, seeks and is granted one week to file a reply.
13. List on 17.07.2025.
14. For the reasons recorded above, till the next date of hearing, the invocation of Bank Guarantee bearing Nos. QXOGPGE233030514, dated 30.10.2023 and 0605NDLG00003725 shall remain stayed, if not, already done till 11:50 am today, subject to the petitioner keeping them alive. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 13, 2025/pk Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 00:55:34