Spml Infra Limited Vs. Ntpc Limited and anr

Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 18, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1101337

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1101337
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Rajiv Shakdher
Decided On: Dec 18, 2013
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue: Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Spml Infra Limited

Respondent

Ntpc Limited and anr

Excerpt

.....in omp12742013 allowed subject to just exceptions. omp no.1273/2013 and omp no.1274/2013 1. the captioned petitions have been filed under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996.2. mr. nayar says that the prayers made in the captioned petitions are common, save and except the amounts referred to therein.3. broadly, the prayer sought is that the bank guarantees in issue which were encashed by respondent no.1 and the amounts which came by the said respondents, should be invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit.4. to be noted, there is no averment in the petitions that respondent no.1 is not good for its money. 4.1 mr. nayar concedes that no such averment has been made nor any document has been filed in that behalf.5. the concern of the petitioner is that if they were to file a substantive action, and succeed, they may not be able to retrieve the money with interest. as indicated above, there is no basis set out to substantiate such a plea. if the respondents’ counsel is to be believed, respondent no.1 is presently categorised as a “maharatna”.6. needless to say though, if a substantive action is filed, if not already filed and, if it were to include a claim for such an amount alongwith interest, the concerned forum will consider the same in accordance with law.7. with the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petitions are disposed of. rajiv shakdher, j december18 2013/yg

Full Judgment

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:

18. 12.2013 + O.M.P. 1273/2013 SPML INFRA LIMITED ..... PETITIONER VERSUS NTPC LIMITED & ANR + ..... RESPONDENTS O.M.P. 1274/2013 SPML INFRA LTD ..... PETITIONER VERSUS NTPC LIMITED & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh, Mr. Pradeep Gupta and Mr. S.S. Gupta, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Saumya Agarwal, Ms. Abenta and Mr. Rohan Poddar, Advocates for R-1 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J IA No.20707/2013 (Exemption) in OMP12732013 IA No.20708/2013 (Exemption) in OMP12742013 Allowed subject to just exceptions. OMP No.1273/2013 and OMP No.1274/2013 1. The captioned petitions have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Mr. Nayar says that the prayers made in the captioned petitions are common, save and except the amounts referred to therein.

3. Broadly, the prayer sought is that the bank guarantees in issue which were encashed by respondent no.1 and the amounts which came by the said respondents, should be invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit.

4. To be noted, there is no averment in the petitions that respondent no.1 is not good for its money. 4.1 Mr. Nayar concedes that no such averment has been made nor any document has been filed in that behalf.

5. The concern of the petitioner is that if they were to file a substantive action, and succeed, they may not be able to retrieve the money with interest. As indicated above, there is no basis set out to substantiate such a plea. If the respondents’ counsel is to be believed, respondent no.1 is presently categorised as a “Maharatna”.

6. Needless to say though, if a substantive action is filed, if not already filed and, if it were to include a claim for such an amount alongwith interest, the concerned forum will consider the same in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petitions are disposed of. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J DECEMBER18 2013/yg

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2013 Same Parties Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited and anr Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Rajiv Shakdher