Full Text
Translation output
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2378/2017
HONSHU BUILCON PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajesh Gupta and Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 2378/2017
HONSHU BUILCON PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajesh Gupta and Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents
Through Ms.Mini Pushkarana, Standing Counsel for the North DMC with Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocate.
Through Ms.Mini Pushkarana, Standing Counsel for the North DMC with Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.03.2017 C.M. No.10229/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
14.03.2017 C.M. No.10229/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2378/2017 & C.M. No. 10228/2017 (stay)
Petitioner before this Court is the Honshu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
It is a duly incorporated company. It is aggrieved by the cancellation letter dated 10.3.2017 issued by the respondent department cancelling his allotment of advertisement rights vis-a-vis Civil Lines Zone, Cluster No.4. His contention is that the demand letter dated
03.02.2017 raising an illegitimate demand of Rs.88,43,402/- is illegal.
On advance notice learned counsel for respondent/North DMC has put in appearance. Her submission is that there is an arbitration clause inter se the parties qua the present contract dated 17.5.2016.
2017:DHC:8129 o The arbitration clause is in para 28.2. Learned counsel for the respondent additionally points out that the petitioner in an identical situation had preferred to file a petition under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) wherein that petition had been entertained and disposed of vide an order passed in OMP No.84/2017 on 20.02.2017. Copy ofthe said order has been placed on record. Learned counsel for respondent points out that there can be no pick and choose policy; the petitioner already having availed ofthe remedy under Section 9 ofthe said Act in an identical situation cannot take recourse to writ proceedings. Even otherwise since there isanarbitration clause, there is a mandate to approach the Arbitration Court.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he would not be pressing this petition. He submits that he would approach the competent court under the said Act. His submission is that as far back on 01.12.2016 he had made a representation to the
Department which till date has remained unanswered. He accordingly prays that in this interregnum period no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
The petitioner will take recourse to alternate remedy within 10 days from today. In this interregnum period no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner should be directed to pay admitted licence fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of licence fee from other running media (in the same cluster), the amount payable is disputed. Additional submission of the petitioner being that all these submissions and counter submissions can be taken care of by the Arbitration Court.
This petition is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn.
No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition disposed of
Order dasti under signatures ofthe C( faster.
MARCH 14, 2017 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Petitioner before this Court is the Honshu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
It is a duly incorporated company. It is aggrieved by the cancellation letter dated 10.3.2017 issued by the respondent department cancelling his allotment of advertisement rights vis-a-vis Civil Lines Zone, Cluster No.4. His contention is that the demand letter dated
03.02.2017 raising an illegitimate demand of Rs.88,43,402/- is illegal.
On advance notice learned counsel for respondent/North DMC has put in appearance. Her submission is that there is an arbitration clause inter se the parties qua the present contract dated 17.5.2016.
2017:DHC:8129 o The arbitration clause is in para 28.2. Learned counsel for the respondent additionally points out that the petitioner in an identical situation had preferred to file a petition under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) wherein that petition had been entertained and disposed of vide an order passed in OMP No.84/2017 on 20.02.2017. Copy ofthe said order has been placed on record. Learned counsel for respondent points out that there can be no pick and choose policy; the petitioner already having availed ofthe remedy under Section 9 ofthe said Act in an identical situation cannot take recourse to writ proceedings. Even otherwise since there isanarbitration clause, there is a mandate to approach the Arbitration Court.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he would not be pressing this petition. He submits that he would approach the competent court under the said Act. His submission is that as far back on 01.12.2016 he had made a representation to the
Department which till date has remained unanswered. He accordingly prays that in this interregnum period no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
The petitioner will take recourse to alternate remedy within 10 days from today. In this interregnum period no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner should be directed to pay admitted licence fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of licence fee from other running media (in the same cluster), the amount payable is disputed. Additional submission of the petitioner being that all these submissions and counter submissions can be taken care of by the Arbitration Court.
This petition is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn.
No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition disposed of
Order dasti under signatures ofthe C( faster.
MARCH 14, 2017 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT