Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S S And S Technocrats Pvt. Ltd & Anr on 24 May, 2023
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 164/2023
M/S VISHNURUPA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manik Dogra, Mr.Arjun
Jain, Ms.Anushree Narain,
Mr.Vipul Chaudhary, Ms.Sapna
Jain, Mr.Mayank Srivastava,
Mr.Dhruv Pande, Advs.
versus
M/S S AND S TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Avsi Malik, Mr.Abhinav
Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 24.05.2023 I.A. 8301/2023(exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
I.A. 8303/20232. An objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the filing of the petition on 28.02.2023 was a non-est filing. To test this objection, a report was called from the Registry, vide order dated 04.05.2023, on the objections raised by the Registry on the petition till its listing along with what had been filed by the petitioner. The Registry has placed the report on record.
3. A perusal of the report indicates that the petition filed by the petitioner on 28.02.2023 was accompanied with the copy of the Award and ran into 285 pages. The objections raised were of formatting and further requirements, which would not make the filing of the petition non-est.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if the 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 25/09/2023 at 02:46:08 petition is considered to have been properly filed on 28.02.2023, there is a delay of almost 60 days in re-filing of the petition. This again is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petition was re-filed on various occasions, however, objections were raised by the Registry which caused delay of 19 days in re-filing of the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to study the report filed by the Registry for filing of reply to this application.
6. Presently, I am of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay in the filing of the petition. The present order would, therefore, proceed on that basis, while awaiting the reply from the respondent.
7. The respondent may file its response to this application within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter.
8. List on 20th September, 2023.
O.M.P. (COMM) 164/2023 & I.As. 8300/2023, 8302/2023
9. Issue notice.
10. Notice is accepted by Ms. Avsi Malik, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
11. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Arbitrator has completely ignored Clause 31 of the Work Order which entitled the petitioner to terminate the Work Order by giving a seven days' notice in the event of the respondent abandoning the work or failing to proceed with the work with due diligence and make due progress or where the respondent would be unable to complete the work within the time agreed upon. He submits that 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 25/09/2023 at 02:46:08 the period for completion of the work was extended till 15.09.2020, however, as found by the learned Arbitrator, only 58% of the de-scoped work was completed by the respondents as on 01.09.2020, clearly evidencing that there was no possibility of the respondent completing the work within the stipulated period. He submits that the petitioner, therefore, was within its rights to terminate the agreement invoking Clause 31 of the Work Order. The learned Arbitrator, however, placing reliance on Clause 47.2 of the General Conditions of Contract (in short 'GCC'), held that 15 days' notice was required for terminating the Work Order. He submits that, therefore, the learned Arbitrator has completely ignored one of the vital Clauses of the Work Order between the parties, and the Award, for that reason, is liable to be set aside.
12. Keeping in view the submissions made, in my opinion, the petitioner has been able to make out a good prima facie case in its favour. The Award rejects the counter-claim of the petitioner based on the above finding, which appears to have been arrived at without taking into account Clause 31 of the Work Order.
13. Accordingly, there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned Award till further orders.
14. List on 20th September, 2023.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY 24, 2023 RN 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 25/09/2023 at 02:46:09