Delhi High Court - Orders
Mep Hyderabad Bangalore Toll Road Pvt. ... vs National Highways Authority Of India on 17 February, 2023
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB. A. (COMM.) 11/2021
MEP HYDERABAD BANGALORE TOLL ROAD PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. S.K.
Sarkar and Mr. Rishabh Jain,
Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gautam and Mr. Anant
Gautam, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 17.02.2023
CCP(O) 8/2021
1. The present has been filed by the petitioner on the assertion that despite the interim orders dated 25.02.2021 and 26.02.2021 passed by this Court, the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner to the NHAI was encashed in utter violation of the said interim orders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reply filed on behalf of the NHAI clearly reveals that the omission to communicate the aforesaid interim orders to the bank was a wilful omission on the part of the NHAI and the said omission amount to flagrant contempt of the aforesaid orders dated 25.02.2021 and 26.02.2021. He draws the attention to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the reply filed on behalf of the NHAI through Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, General Manager (T) & Regional Officer, NHAI, which reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:20.02.2023 15:33:50"3. At the very outset, the answering Respondent humbly submit that even the Petitioner has not alleged or attributed any overt, direct or indirect acts to the officers of the NHAI which resulted in encashment of bank guarantee on 26.02.2021. In fact, initially the contempt petition did not even name any officer much less allege any specific act or role. After the hearing on 26.02.2021, the Advocate for NHAI had duly intimated the officers with regard to interim order having been continued by the Court and accordingly, NHAI decided to await the outcome of the petition on merits. NHAI officers including the answering respondent took no action whatsoever which, in any way would amount to committing wilful disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court. The answering Respondent categorically state that after the interim orders were passed by this Hon'ble Court, neither the answering Respondent nor any other officers of NHAI even contacted the bank officers either in writing or in any other manner with regard to the bank guarantee. It appears that the bank guarantee was encashed due to confusion between the officials of the Petitioner and the bank. The true facts leading to encashment of bank guarantee can only by disclosed by these parties and the answering respondent is not in a position to comment as to facts which transpired between these two parties."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, he had earlier submitted that the petitioner does not wish to press for taking any action for contempt against the NHAI (as recorded in the order dated 05.05.2021), in view of the aforesaid admission in the reply, he will be moving an appropriate application seeking that requisite action be taken against NHAI for committing contempt of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court. The plaintiff is at liberty to file an appropriate application in this regard before the next date of hearing.
4. List on 18th April, 2023.
SACHIN DATTA, J FEBRUARY 17, 2023/AK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:20.02.2023 15:33:50