M/S Vil Rohtak Jind Highway Pvt Ltd v. National Highway Authority Of India & ANR

$~89 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 14/2017 M/S VIL ROHTAK JIND HIGHWAY PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr K.V. Singh, Mr Manish Deembla, Mr Nachiketa Goyal, Adv.

versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms Gunjan S. Jain, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 16.01.2017 CAV 49/2017 The learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator is present. The caveat stands discharged.

CM 1770-1771/2017 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

FAO(OS)(COMM) 14/2017 & CM 1769/2017 We have heard the counsel for the parties and we have also gone through the entire sequence of orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2016, 03.08.2016, 17.08.2016, 01.09.2016, 14.09.2016, 26.09.2016, 08.11,2016, 17.11.2016, 28.11.2016, 21.12.2016, 03.01.2017 and the impugned order dated 09.01.2017. We may point out that in the first instance the matter came up before court on 25.07.2016 when the learned Single Judge, considering the possibility of conciliation between the parties and with a view to completing the project, required the petitioner/appellant herein to file an affidavit within one week thereafter. It was specifically recorded in the order to the following effect:-

" In case all parties would be ready to take positive approach, an order would be passed for meeting, otherwise the matter would be considered on merit".

On the same date, the learned Single Judge also directed that no coercive steps be taken by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner. Thereafter on all the dates up to 09.01.2017 the matter proceeded on the attempts being made at resolving the outstanding disputes. It it only on 09.01.2017, on which date the impugned order was passed, that the court noted that the main contesting parties i.e., the appellant and NHAI had been unable to resolve their outstanding disputes. It is for this reason alone that the learned Single Judge found no justification in continuing the interim order passed on 25.07.2016.

Consequently, OMP (I) (Comm) 310/2016 which was a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.

Although the learned counsel for the respondent states that the learned Single Judge heard the matter on merits on 17.11.2016 as also on other occasions, which is controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find the discussion on merits in the impugned order. It was of course sought to be argued before us by the learned counsel for the respondent that no interim order could have been granted particularly when the contract between the appellant and the respondent no.1 was a contract which could be terminated by either party and had in fact been terminated prior to the filing of the petition under Section 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that this was not a contract of a nature which the parties herein could terminate before the end of the tenure of the contract. It was also submitted that in such contracts the court could grant an injunction preventing the termination of the contract under certain circumstances.

The learned counsel for the appellant also refutes the statement that the contract had infact been terminated.

We are consciously not entering into this arena of disputes between the parties as we feel it is for the learned single Judge to examine these aspects and decide accordingly.

Consequently, we are disposing of the present appeal by restoring the OMP (I) (Comm) 310/2016 to the file of the learned Single Judge who shall thereafter dispose of the same on merits. List before the learned Single Judge on 20.01.2017 in the first instance. Till that date, the order which was operaring prior to and up to 09.01.2017 shall continue to operate.

It would be open to the learned Single Judge to modify, vacate or confirm the order during the hearing of the petition itself.

We are making it clear that we have not commented upon or made any observation on the merits of the matter. The parties shall not seek any adjournment before the learned Single Judge. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JANUARY 16, 2017 kb