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

Telecommunication Consultants India ... vs Mbl Infrastructure Ltd on 6 November, 2020

Author: Rekha Palli

Bench: Rekha Palli

                          $~14                                        Via video conferencing
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      O.M.P. (COMM) 507/2020 & IA No. 9398/2020
                          TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner
                                          Through: Mr. Rattan Singh ,Adv.

                                                   versus

                          MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD                                 ..... Respondent
                                          Through:              Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Ms. Nikita
                                                                Salwan,    Mr. Abhishek Pundiar,
                                                                Chaitany Bansal & Mr. Bankim Garg
                                                                Advs.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
                                                   ORDER

% 06.11.2020

1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act assailing the award dated 20.01.2020 as corrected on 25.06.2020.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award is wholly perverse as the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that huge deductions have been made by HSRDC from the petitioner, in respect of repeat measurements made and built by the respondent.

3. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that once the petitioner has admittedly received the entire payment from HSRDC towards the work completed by the respondent way back in 2011, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should forthwith remit 98.5% of the said amount to the respondent in terms of the sub contract dated 17.09.2008.

Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MANJU BHATT Signing Date:07.11.2020 12:33:24

4. In my view, before the petition is taken up for further consideration, it would be appropriate to direct both sides to file, within one week, a chart depicting the amount received by the petitioner under the bills in question and the payments made to the respondent. The petitioner will also point out the amounts which it claims are recoverable from the respondent..

5. List on 07.12.2020.

REKHA PALLI, J.

NOVEMBER 6, 2020 'hk' Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MANJU BHATT Signing Date:07.11.2020 12:33:24