Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

National Highways Authority Of India ... vs M/S L&T Samakhiali Gandhidham Tollway ... on 10 May, 2022

Author: Vibhu Bakhru

Bench: Vibhu Bakhru

                          $~18
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      O.M.P. (COMM) 108/2019 & IA Nos. 3919/2019, 6371/2019 &
                                 6372/2019

                                 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
                                 INDIA (NHAI)                             ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, Mr Ashutosh
                                                         Mohan and Ms Mansie Jain,
                                                         Advocates.
                                              versus
                                 M/S L&T SAMAKHIALI GANDHIDHAM
                                 TOLLWAY LIMITED                          ..... Respondent
                                              Through: Mr Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate
                                                         with Mr Rishi Agrawala, Ms Shruti
                                                         Arora and Mr Sukrit Seth, Advocates.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                                              ORDER

% 10.05.2022

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has concluded his arguments. He has assailed the impugned award on two grounds. First, he submits that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that there was a change in scope of the works is erroneous. He submits that the specifications in Schedule B to the Concession Agreement specified the minimum specification. Any deviation from the same would not constitute change in scope provided it was within the scope of the standards as set under Schedule D to the Concession Agreement.

2. He states that in this case, the Arbitral Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that even though the work executed was within the standards as specified under Schedule D, it constituted a change of scope as it was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.05.2022 beyond the specifications as prescribed in Schedule B.

3. Second, he submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has erred in not considering the counter-claims on the ground that the respondent's application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was accepted earlier.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks further time to address the arguments on the aforesaid questions.

5. List on 06.07.2022.





                                                                                   VIBHU BAKHRU, J
                          MAY 10, 2022
                          RK                             Click here to check corrigendum, if any




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:18.05.2022