ATLANTA LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & INFRASTRUCTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

(2.) On 11.02.2016 an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was signed for four lanning of end of Morpan Bypass (KM 561.700) to Bogibeel Junction near Lapetkata (KM 580.778) of NH-37 til1 the State of Assam under SARDP-NE, Phase A Project - the length of the stretch running up to 19.008 KMS. The grievance of the petitioner is it was to get 90% of total land free from all obstructions by a certain date but the respondent No.1 took long time to handover such land and further had threatened to terminate the contract time and again for which the petitioner had approached this Court twice earlier. It is alleged besides handing over obstruction-free land to the petitioner, there was certain utilities which need to be shifted from both sides of the road for which too the petitioner was made to make the payments to such utility shifting contractors for removing and/or installing those, though such payments were to be reimbursed by respondent No.1. It is alleged much payments were made to such contractors but the respondent No.1 failed to reimburse such payments in time and it all led to the delay in project for which the petitioner cannot be held solely responsible; hence it is alleged the termination of the contract by the respondent No.1 be held illegal and respondent No.1 be restrained to encash various bank guarantees viz performance and mobilisation advance guarantees given by the petitioner to respondent No.1.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the history of the case viz the termination of the contract by respondent No.1 vide its termination letter dated 08.06.2016 and approaching this Court by the petitioner on 14.06.2016 vide OMP (I) (COMM) No.266/2016, which was disposed of by this Court on 17.06.2016 wherein the counsel for respondent No.1 submitted, on instructions from Mr.K.G.Bhatt, that without prejudice to the rights of the respondent No.1 the impugned termination notice shall not be acted upon and recourse to law would be taken as per the EPC Agreement in question. The said petition was disposed of as infructuous.