Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.09.2025
RVR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr Adv.
Through: Mr. Ayush Negi, Adv., Ms. Aarushi Gupta, Adv., Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (“the Act”) seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 21.03.2015.
2. On 27.09.2018, the petition was disposed of and the order reads as under:-
petitioner to the respondent) towards full and final settlement of all claims preferred by the respondent.
(ii) The aforementioned amount will be paid in twelve
(12) equated monthly instalments, commencing from 07.10.2018.
(iii) Interest will run at the rate of 6% (simple) per annum to be begin with on the sum of Rs. 3.61 crores w.e.f. the date of the Award i.e. 21.03.2015. Thereafter, the interest will run on the amount adjusted for the instalment(s) paid i.e. on reducing balance method.
(iv) The respondent will take necessary steps in having the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner and/or its Directors, including Mr. R.V.R. Chowdhary, withdrawn/disposed of/quashed. These proceedings are numbered as: Case Nos.107/2016 & 108/2016 filed under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
(v) Likewise, the respondent will also assist the petitioner and its Directors in getting the FIR quashed from the concerned Court.
2 To be noted, the Director of the petitioner i.e. Mr. R.V.R. Choudhary, is present in Court. He has understood the terms of the agreement, which are set out hereinabove. Mr. R.V.R. Choudhary has appended his signatures at the foot of the page. 2.[1] Likewise, Mr. Manoj Aggarwal, Director of the respondent, is also present. He has read and understood the terms set out hereinabove and appended his signatures at the foot of the page in affirmation of the same.
5 Parties undertake to abide by the terms of this settlement. In case, the petitioner continues to pay the monthly instalment, the respondent will not precipitate the criminal proceedings and instead, as agreed upon hereinabove, will assist in having them withdrawn/disposed of/quashed.”
3. Subsequently, there were delays in making the payment by the petitioner, and on 31.07.2024, the following order was passed:-
2. List this matter before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 8 August 2024 so that the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) could ascertain whether payment by the respondent to the petitioner has been as per the above computation.
3. Let a report be submitted by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks thereof.
4. In the meanwhile, the Registry is directed to release to the petitioner the amount deposited by the respondent along with interest that has been accrued thereon till date.”
4. Thereafter, an order dated 28.08.2024 was passed, which reads as under:-
5. On 12.09.2024, this Court clarified, and the order reads as under:- “I.A. 14547/2018 and I.A. 19120/2023
1. Learned Counsel for both sides are in ad idem that the manner in which the amount of principle and instalments were payable in accordance with the order dated 27 September 2018 has correctly been computed in the table contained in the order dated 31 July 2024.
2. However, while working out the interest payable, the table in the order dated 31 July 2024 has computed the interest based on the date when the payment was required to be made, i.e., on the 7th of every month.
3. In the event that the payment was not made by then, the numbers of dates for which interest would be liable to be computed would change and the interest amount would also accordingly change.
4. Learned Counsel for both sides are directed to place their charts of the amounts payable based on the dates of actual payment, within a period of two weeks from today.
5. Re-notify on 4 October 2024.”
6. The respondent had filed a contempt petition, being CCP (O) No.63/2018, alleging non-compliance with the order dated 27.09.2018. The contempt petition was also disposed of vide an order dated 24.07.2024.
7. The present petition is now listed in view of the order dated 28.01.2025, wherein this Court recorded as under:-
3. Accordingly, disputes are referred to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi – 110002 who shall nominate a Chartered Accountant with consent of the parties. The Chartered Accountant so appointed shall submit his report within four weeks from today. The parties shall bear the fee of the Chartered Accountant equally.
4. Renotify on 03.04.2025. DASTI”
8. Pursuant to the said directions, the Chartered Accountant appointed by the ICAI, i.e. Arora and Bansal, has filed its report. Some of the paragraphs of the report need to be reproduced, which read as under:- “WORKING METHODOLOGIES”
1. Petitioner RVR’s Method (UDAY RVR Sheet) - Follows court - issued repayment plan. - Delay interest only for actual overdue periods. - Final outcome: Overpayment of Rs. 2.56 lakhs. The Calculation Sheet outlines the calculation of delayed payment interest and principal adjustments between RVR Digital Infrastructures Ltd and Sanjhi Exim. The initial principal due was Rs. 30,08,333.33, with instalments scheduled between 2018 and 2023. Each payment was analysed for delays, and interest was charged at 6% per annum on overdue amounts. Payments were first applied to interest on delayed payments, then to court - calculated interest, and finally to the principal. The delay period was computed from the due date to the actual payment date, with some payments spanning multiple instalments. Negative entries indicate adjustments where excess payments from previous instalments were carried forward. The final payment of Rs. 1,02,03,171 on 26-09-2023 settled all dues, with the claim of excess payment of Rs. 2.56 lakhs after accounting for principal and interest. This claims full discharge of liabilities, though the excess amount may need reconciliation. The structured approach ensured accurate tracking of dues, interest accruals, and payment allocations, adhering to legal and financial obligations.
2. Sanjhi’s Method - Recalculates historical interest on unpaid balance. - Final outcome: Outstanding of Rs. 6.38 lakhs - Principal Amount: o Assumes Initial principal due is Rs. 36,48,737 (vs. RVR’s Rs. 30,08,333), possibly due to: Unpaid interest capitalized into principal. - Payment Dates: o Uses actual receipt dates for delay calculations (e.g., payments in 2021-2023 for 2018-2019 dues). a. Interest Calculation: o A flat 6% per annum simple interest is applied on overdue amounts. o Interest is computed as: Interest = Outstanding Principal×6%×Delay (Days) /365 o Rounding off to the nearest rupee is applied (e.g., Rs.24,567.50 Rs.24,568). b. Payment Allocation: o Payments are first used to clear accrued interest, and any surplus reduces the principal balance. o For example, a payment of Rs. 10,00,000 with Rs.2,00,000 interest due would adjust as: Rs.2,00,000 - Interest set-off (Column H). Rs.8,00,000 - Principal reduction (Column I). c. Delay Periods: o Some payments were delayed by over 1,000 days (e.g., a 2019 instalment paid in 2021), resulting in significant interest accruals. d. Shortfall Claim: o Sanjhi Exim concludes that after all payments, RVR still owes Rs.6,38,559 in principal, with an additional Rs.2,24,142 in interest (up to 09-07-2025), totalling Rs.8,62,701/-. o This directly contradicts RVR's claim of an excess payment of Rs.2.56 lakhs. Sanjhi Exim’s calculations on delayed payment interest from RVR Infrastructure Ltd. at 6% p.a. simple interest, Considering the principal amounting to Rs.36.48L (due to interest capitalization). Each payment is first applied to accrued interest, with any surplus reducing the principal. The sheet highlights significant delays, resulting in substantial interest. Sanjhi concludes that RVR owes Rs.6.38L in unpaid principal plus Rs.2.24 Lakhs in interest (until 2025), totaling Rs.8.63 Lakhs directly contradicting RVR’s claim of a Rs.2.56 Lakhs overpaid.”
9. However, the conclusion of the report is relevant and the same reads as under:- “Conclusion: After evaluating the various calculation approaches, we present the following comparative summary for better understanding: Approach Approach Description Outcome Respondent Approach Interest Calculated on Principal plus interest. Each payment is first applied to accrued interest, with any surplus reducing the principal. Rs. 6.38 Lakhs shortfall (+ Rs. 2.24 Lakhs interest). Total = Rs.
8.62 Lakhs Petitioner Approach Payments were first applied to interest on delayed payments, then to courtcalculated interest, and finally to the principal and other complicated methodology. Rs. 2.56 Lakhs excess payment. Our Approach Approach 1 Treatment of each installment as complete payment (principal + accrued interest through payment date) as per methodology adopted under the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 31.07.2024. Excess payment of Rs.9,66,020 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty-Six Thousand Twenty Only) to Respondent. Approach 2 Interest-first payment Outstanding balance application (consistent with standard Banking/NBFC industry practice). (RECOMMENDED) of Rs.9,45,456 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Six Only) payable to M/s Sanjhi Exim Pvt. Ltd. Approach 3 Installment payment firstly Towards the Principal then Towards the Interest including the delayed interest. Not a banking & NBFC Industries Practice, neither recommended nor calculation done. In accordance with prevailing banking and NBFC sector practices, we strongly recommend to adopt Approach 2 (interest-first payment application methodology). This approach would result in an outstanding liability of Rs.9,45,456/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Six Only) due from the Petitioner to the Respondent including interest till 09.07.2025. While our professional recommendation according to prevailing banking and NBFC sector practices Favors Approach 2. However, Hon’ble Court, we may also acknowledge that: The Hon’ble Court may uphold Approach 1 as the same is in aligned with methodology adopted as mentioned order dated 31.07.2024, which would indicate an overpayment of Rs.9,66,020/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty-Six Thousand Twenty Only) by the Respondent.”
10. The concluding paragraphs show that the professional recommendations of the Chartered Accountant favours the approach of the respondent. However, the calculation of the petitioner is as per the order of this Court dated 31.07.2024.
11. I am of the considered view that the Order of this Court dated 31.07.2024 shall prevail over any professional recommendation or industry practice, as the amounts payable have been determined in accordance with the said order. A perusal of the orders reproduced above clearly establish that the sums payable stand crystallised by this Court, more particularly under the order dated 31.07.2024, which was further reiterated by the order dated 12.09.2024. The independent Chartered Accountant has already opined that the petitioner has discharged the liability in terms of the order dated 31.07.2024, and therefore, no amounts remain due or payable.
12. In this view of the matter, there are no amounts due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent.
13. Mr. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, states that no amount will be recovered from the respondent (even though there are amounts due as per the report).
14. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.