Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petitions are disposed of in the above tenns
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The petitions are disposed of in the above tenns. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. SEPTEMBER 19,2012 RK S.MURALIDHAR, J OMP Nos. 875 and 878 of 2012 Puge 3 oJ'3
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 875 of 2012 RELIANCE INFRATEL LTD ..... petitioner Through: Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate. versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (DMRC) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer, DIr4RC. 'ru/ And O.I\,I.P. 878 of 2012 RELIANCE INFRATEL LTD Tluough: Mr. Ravindra Shrivastaver, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate. VETSUS DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (DMRC) ..... Respondent Through: Mr'. A.S. Rao, Larv Officer,.DMRC. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURAI,IDHAR. " oRDnn 19.09.2012
#1. This Court has heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior cormsel for OMP Nos 875 and 878 of 2012 Page' 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA .\ 'i.J the Petitioner.
#2. This Court is not inclined to grant the interim relief as prayed for in OMP No. 875 of 2012 except to the extent that in the event that the Petitioner, on or before 3'd october 2012, pays the Respondent Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited ('DMRC') the penalty amount demanded under protest, flre facilities provided to the Petitioner including access will not be stopped by DMRC till the conclusion of the arbitation proceedings. It is made clear that this paVrnent will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner as to the validity of the demand, which question would be detennined in the arbination proceedings. It is also made clear that if the payment is not made'within time granted, it will be open to DMRC to take appropriate action.
#3. As regards oMP No. 876 of 2012,\,ft. A.s. Rao, Law officer of DMRC, who is present in Court, states fltat as long as the Petitioner keeps the bank gnarantee ('BG') in question alive during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, DMRC will not invoke or encash the BG.
#4. In view of the aforesaid statement of Mr. Rao, no frrther directions are OMP Nos. 875 and 878 af 2012 called for in these petitions.
#5. However, as regards the disputes in both oMp Nos. g75 and g76 of 2012, flre continuance of the interim orders is made ftirther conditional on the Petitioner writing a letter to DMRC within ten days from today invoking the arbihation clause.
#6. The petitions are disposed of in the above tenns. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. SEPTEMBER 19,2012 RK S.MURALIDHAR, J OMP Nos. 875 and 878 of 2012 Puge 3 oJ'3
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.