Rajpal Singh v. Union Of India & ANR.

$~2 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12.10.2018 ARB.P. 589/2018 ASHISH GREWAL & ORS.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1.

ARB.P. 590/2018 & I.A. No.10817/2018 SATINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr.

Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs.

ARB.P. 591/2018 & I.A. No.10818/2018 SURENDER RANA UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Pg. 1 of 7

Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1.

ARB.P. 596/2018 SATPRAKASH RANA UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1.

ARB.P. 636/2018 SURENDER SINGH & ANR.

Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, CGP and Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Adv. for UOI.

ARB.P. 637/2018 SURENDER BHATIA & ORS.

Pg. 2 of 7

Mr.Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, CGP and Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Adv. for UOI.

ARB.P. 638/2018 SAROJ DEVI & ORS.

UNION OFINDIA & ANR.

Mr.

Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs.

ARB.P. 639/2018 SAROJ & ORS.

ARB.P. 640/2018 DURGESH RANA & ANR.

Pg. 3 of 7

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Mr.

Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs.

ARB.P. 641/2018 NAVEEN GREWAL & ANR.

Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1.

ARB.P. 642/2018 VIRENDRA SINGH & ORS.

Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms.

Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1.

ARB.P. 643/2018 AMARJEET RANA Pg. 4 of 7

Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms.

Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1.

ARB.P. 644/2018 BALWAN SINGH ARB.P. 645/2018 ASHOK KUMAR Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms.

Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1.

ARB.P. 646/2018 RAJPAL SINGH Pg. 5 of 7

Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms.

Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL) These are petitions in which recourse has been taken to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short '1996 Act'). The petitioners claim that despite notice having been issued to the respondents, there has been no movement in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, says that in view of the provisions of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 being in operation, the captioned petitions are not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, this aspect of the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of: General Manager (Project), National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Pradhan & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2018, dated 16.05.2018. Furthermore, attention has also been drawn to the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2018 in a batch of petitions; the lead petition being Arb. P. No.696/2018. The respondents, in my view, are right and, therefore, these Pg. 6 of 7

petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be available to them in law. Accompanying applications shall, accordingly, stand closed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J OCTOBER 12, 2018 Pg. 7 of 7