Delhi High Court · 2025-02-03
ETAWAH CHAKERI (KANPUR) HIGHWAY PRIVATE LIMITED vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
- Citation / case number
- O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)-26/2025 2025:DHC:811
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- ETAWAH CHAKERI (KANPUR) HIGHWAY PRIVATE LIMITED
- Respondent
- NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 03.02.2025 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 26/2025, IA 1716/2025 ETAWAH CHAKERI (KANPUR) HIGHWAY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Airi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mudit Ruhella and Mr.Vishal Tyagi, Advocates Versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel with Mr.Arjun Singh Bhati and Mr. Kartik K. Gupta, Advocates for respondent no.1 (M:9818309301). Mr. P.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:- “...A. Restrain the Respondent no. 1 from recovering an amount of Rs. 44,28,32,815/- from the Petitioner and also from the Escrow account pursuant to the letter dated 02.01.2025. B. Restrain respondent no. 2 from releasing any such amount of Rs. 44,28,32,815/- pursuant to the letter dated 02.01 .2025 till the pendency of the Arbitral proceedings. C. Any amount released 111 the violation of the Concession Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 26/2025 Page 1 of 8 By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:10.02.2025 17:32:36 Agreement...” 2. The petitioner and respondent No.1/NHAI entered into a Concession Agreement dated 05.03.2012 and Escrow Agreement dated 27.08.2021, and Clause 44.3 of the Concession Agreement thereof stipulates resolution of disputes through arbitration as governed under the A&C Act and further provides for the venue of Arbitration to be Delhi. 3. The present dispute arises in the context of enhanced fee collected by the petitioner for overloaded vehicles in compliance with amended Fee Rules, which, as per respondent No.1, had to be