Partly allowed

Reliance Infrastructure Limited and 2 Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2010WP/1542/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 1542 of 2009, a writ petition was dismissed but the Court granted a limited stay pending three weeks to enable the petitioner to comply with the law, ordering the third respondent to pay Rs.2100 crores within the contractual period.

What did the court decide?

Limited stay granted for three weeks; third respondent must pay Rs. 2100 crores after issuing an acceptance letter.

Reliance Infrastructure Limited and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

srk

wp-1542-09.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1542 OF 2009

¶6

Reliance Infrastructure Limited and others. ... Petitioners Versus Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. J.J. Bhat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, Ms. Anjali Chandorkar, Mr. Naval Agarwal and Mr. D.J. Kakalia i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Chavan, Mr. J. Kapadia, Mr. F. Lakdawala and Mr. M. Bootwala i/by M/s. Little & Co. for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. Rohington Nariman, Senior Advocate, Mr. Furdoon De'vitre, Senior Advocate, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Deepak Y. Chitnis i/by M/s. Chitnis-Chinpar4ikar & Co. for respondent No.3.

¶11

Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge for respondent No.4.

¶12

Ms. Savitha Kundar i/by M/s. Negandhi, Shah & Himayatulla for respondent No.5.

¶13

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Thursday, October 28, 2010

¶14

P .C.

¶15

After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that status-quo as of today may be continued for a period of

srk

wp-1542-09.sxw

three weeks in order to enable the petitioner to act in accordance with law.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that the petition having been dismissed, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief from this Court, when no stay was operating during the pendency of the petition. It is further submitted that MSRDC will not be able to receive the amount of Rs.2100 crores until they first issue a letter of acceptance to the third respondent.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of stay as prayed for and having regard to the fact that the third respondent is presently collecting the toll, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be served if we grant a limited stay to the extent that while it would be open to the MSRDC to issue a letter of acceptance to the third respondent, the third respondent will make payment of the amount of Rs.2100 crores after three weeks from issuance of the letter of acceptance. This is so because even otherwise under the terms of the contract intended to be entered into, the third respondent is to be given 90 days time to make the payment upfront.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Reliance Infrastructure Limited and 2 Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Infrastructure Limited and 2 Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mumbai Medwaste Action Group Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Mira Bhayander Muncipal Corporation Vs 1. Dinesh D Parmar

Damayanti Dilip Sampat and Ors. Vs Vrajeshkumar P. Sampat.

Peopes Action Committee and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashatra and Ors.

Teresa Rajan Nair, Mumbai. Vs 1. Vincent Fernandes, Thana.