M/S BGR MINING & INFRA LTD v. NTPC LTD & ANR

Delhi High Court · 15 Feb 2019 · 2019:DHC:1058-DB
The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao
LPA 81/2019
2019:DHC:1058-DB
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld that discussions under one contractual clause can be construed as compliance with another related clause when no prejudice is caused.

Full Text
Translation output
LPA 81/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
reserved on: February 06, 2019
Judgment delivered on: February 15, 2019
LPA 81/2019, CM Nos. 5410-5411/2019
M/S BGR MINING & INFRA LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priya Kumar, Mr. Adhish Srivastava and Mr. Tejas Chhabra, Advs.
versus
NTPC LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG with Mr. Puneet Taneja, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Shaheen and Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Advs. for NTPC
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CM No. 5410/2019 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exemption.
Application stands disposed of.
CM No. 5411/2019 (permission to file lengthy synopsis)
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.

1. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed by M/S BGR Mining & Infra Ltd the challenging the judgment dated January 2019:DHC:1058-DB 21, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) NO. 463/2018 where the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant NTPC to hold ‘Good Faith Discussions’ with the respondent herein in terms of Clause 23.[1] (b) of the Project Agreement, which shall also be construed as compliance of Clause 24.4(c) of the said Agreement.

2. The challenge in this appeal is limited to the extent that the direction that the discussion under Clause 23.1(b) shall be construed as compliance with Clause 24.4(c) of the Project Agreement. Suffice it to state, we have upheld the directions given by the learned Single Judge in two appeals filed by the NTPC being LPA 57/2019 and LPA 61/2019. Having upheld the said directions, the challenge at the behest of the appellant to the limited extent also deserves to be rejected as no prejudice is caused to the appellant by such directions, as the discussion under both the provisions can take place in one sitting. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 15, 2019