SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, April 28, 2025
Printed For: Atul Thakur, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 SCC OnLine Del 908
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
(BEFORE HIMA KOHLI AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.)
NTPC Limited … Appellant;
Versus
Sri. Avantika Contractors (I) Limited … Respondent.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 91/2020
Decided on August 4, 2020
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Taneja and Mr.
Mohan Singh, Advocates
Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Pallav Palit, Mr. Lalitendra Gulani, Mr. Ambar Bhushan, Mr. Aishvary
Vikram, Mr. Madhav Chitale and Mr. Vinay Tripathi for respondent.
ORDER
C.M. No. 17660/2020(exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 91/2020 & C.M. No. 17659/2020(stay)
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.06.2020,
passed by the learned Single Judge in a petition filed by it under
Section 34 of Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996 [(OMP)
(Comm).370/2017] against the arbitral award dated 07.07.2017
whereunder, the learned Single Judge has upheld Claims No. 2, 4, 5
and 6 awarded in favour of the respondent alongwith a part of Claim
No. 24 whereas, the amount awarded in favour of the respondent
towards loss of profit has been set aside.
3. At the outset, we have expressed our reservation as to the
manner in which the present appeal has been drafted by learned
counsel for the appellant as the grounds taken from (A) to (OOOO) are
largely a reproduction of the grounds taken in the Section 34 petition.
In other words, there has been no application of mind while drafting
the present appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Concilliation Act, 1996 so as to point that the infirmities in the
impugned judgment.
4. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant/NHAI states that as a matter of fact, the scope of the present
appeal is fairly narrow and there are only three-four grounds that the
appellant proposes to take to assail the impugned judgment. He states
in all fairness that his briefing counsel may be permitted to file an
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, April 28, 2025
Printed For: Atul Thakur, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
amended appeal with limited grounds focussing on the aspect of the
impugned judgment with which the appellant is aggrieved. Needful
shall be done within ten days, with a copy to learned counsel for the
respondent.
5. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Dutta,
Senior Advocate for the respondent states that the respondent has filed
an execution petition for seeking enforcement of the arbitral award
which is listed before the learned Single Judge on 06.08.2020 [OMP
(Comm) No. 52/2020].
6. We have been informed that the appellant has already deposited a
sum of Rs. 23.00 crores (approx.) in the Registry, in terms of order
dated 18.04.2018 passed in OMP(I)(Comm).75/2018 filed by the
respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilliation Act,
1996. It is stated that after passing of the impugned judgment, the
appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 37.00 crores (approx.) to the
respondent.
7. Necessary instructions shall be obtained by learned counsel for
the appellant as to the timeline within which the balance amount under
impugned award, shall be deposited in court.
8. List on 02.09.2020.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
