Full Text
Order delivered on: 27th May, 2016 O.M.P. (I) No.371/2015
L& T CHENNAI TADA TOLLWAY LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Atul Y. Chitale, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. Suchitra A.Chitale and Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Advs.
Through Mr.Ravi Sikri, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Mr. Deepank Yadav and Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advs for R-1
Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advs. for R-
2,3,5 & 6.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim directions against the National Highways Authority of India, Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking prayer directing the Respondent No. 1 to continue depositing the toll collected in the Escrow Account and disburse the toll collected in terms of the waterfall mechanism stipulated in the Concession Agreement ("CA") and the Escrow Account Agreement so as to service the tax payments, service the debt, meet the O&M 2016:DHC:4432 obligations and other expenses till the issue of termination is finally decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. By order dated 4th August, 2015 the status quo order was passed.
3. The petitioner has terminated the contract.
4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 upon instruction has made its statement that without prejudice his client would take over the project latest by 31st May, 2016 at 5 p.m.
5. After termination of the Concession Agreement, the respondent No.1 has appointed new agent for toll collection. The new Concession Agreement is yet to be executed. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the process would take some time but the respondent No.1 is taking necessary steps so that the appointment be made on urgent basis.
6. In the meanwhile, both the parties agree without prejudice that the toll collected by the new agent be deposited in the Escrow Account as large amount in debt is still owned by the lenders/banks.
7. As the respondent No.1 has agreed to take over the project by 31st May, 2016, the arrangement already made will continue till that date. All claim and counter-claim of the parties to the agreement would be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal.
8. The respondent No.2., IDBI Bank Ltd. has also filed the application seeking clarification of order dated 4th August, 2015 to the extent that the said order will come in the way of the lenders classifying the project as a ‘nonperforming assets’ in terms of RBI Guidelines. As the main OMP is being disposed of in view of the reasons mentioned in para 1 to 7 of my order, there is now no need to continue with the status quo order in view of the consent order being passed. The said application is accordingly disposed of as well main OMP.
9. The order is being passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties to raise their respective pleas before the Arbitral Tribunal.
10. In the order passed by this Court on 3rd May, 2016 in OMP (I) NO. 370/2015 recording of sub-para 2 that “ the learned counsel for the respondent stated that at the time of termination” is deleted/removed as there was a typing mistake. Copy of this order be placed on record in OMP(I) No.370/2015.
11. Copy of this order be given Dasti to all parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
JUDGE MAY 27, 2016