Essel Gwalaior Shivpuri Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority Of India & ANR.

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 271/2016 ESSEL GWALAIOR SHIVPURI TOLL ROADS PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Amit Singh Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr Sandeep Mahapatra, Mr Dhruv Mailik, Advocates.

versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for R1/NHAI.

Mr Vipin Jai, Adv with Mr Vasudev, Chief Manager, Bank of India, New Delhi Large Corporate Branch, 36, Janpath, Chanderlok Building, New Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 22.08.2016 1.

Mr Vasudev, Chief Manager of Bank of India, New Delhi Large Corporate Branch, is present in the Court and he states that the bank guarantee in question is alive and steps are being taken for its revalidation. He states that the same has been held up since the Petitioner has not submitted the margin money demanded by the Bank. 2.

It has been clarified to him that if the said bank decides not to extend the validity of the bank guarantee, it shall be treated as invoked and the

requisite amount thereof be remitted to the Respondent. 3.

The learned counsel for the parties state that the Chairman of the Concessionaire (the petitioner) and the Chairman of NHAI had met on 21.07.2016 and had taken certain decisions for resolution of the disputes. In terms of the said decision, the petitioner was required to extend the current bank guarantee for a sum of `52.75 crores or to replace the same with a bank guarantee of `26.85 crores. It was further agreed that till the said guarantee is furnished, the earlier guarantee of `52.75 crores would be kept alive.

4.

The petitioner states that it has requested its bank to issue the bank guarantee for a sum of `26.85 crores, however, the same has not been issued as yet.

5.

This court is not concerned with the issue whether the petitioner is able to obtain a fresh bank guarantee for a sum of `26.85 crores. And, it has already been clarified that in the event the bank guarantee already submitted by the petitioner is not revalidated, the same shall - unless returned in original by NHAI - be treated as invoked and the bank shall remit the money to the respondent.

6.

In view of the understanding arrived at between the Chairman of the Petitioner and NHAI on 21.07.2016 and Subject to the above direction, the order dated 27.06.2016 is modified to the extent that the stay on encashment of the subject bank guarantee (or the fresh guarantee in the sum `26.85 crores if furnished) shall continue till the Independent Engineer has submitted its review report. Needless to state that further invocation of the Bank Guarantee will be subject to the review report submitted by the Independent Engineer.

7.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 22, 2016 RK