Dismissed

Satprakash Rana v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Oct 2018ARB.P./596/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In applications for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court held that petitions are not maintainable due to the operation of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with liberty to avail other remedies; accompanying applications closed.

Satprakash Rana Vs Union of India & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~2 to 16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12.10.2018 + ARB.P. 589/2018 ASHISH GREWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 590/2018 & I.A. No.10817/2018 SATINDER SINGH GREWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 591/2018 & I.A. No.10818/2018 SURENDER RANA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶3

ARB.P. 589/2018 & Connected

¶4

Pg. 1 of 7

¶5

Through	Mr.	Mahender K	r. Bhardwaj and
+ ARB.P. 596/2018	Ms. R-1 Ms.	Vinita Kumar A . Kritika Shukla,	shutosh, Advs. for Adv for NHAI.
SATPRAKASH RANA			..... Petitioner
Through versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.	Mr. Sha	Uttam Datt rma, Advs.	and Mr. Tarun ..... Respondents
Through	Mr. Ms. R-1 Ms.	Mahender K Vinita Kumar A . Kritika Shukla,	r. Bhardwaj and shutosh, Advs. for Adv for NHAI.
+ ARB.P. 636/2018
SURENDER SINGH & ANR.
			..... Petitioners
Through versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.	Mr. Sha	Uttam Datt rma, Advs.	and Mr. Tarun ..... Respondents
Through	Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms.	Ajay Digpa Jitendra Kr. Tr Vipul Agrawal, Kritika Shukla,	ul, CGSC with ipathi, CGP and Adv. for UOI. Adv for NHAI.
+ ARB.P. 637/2018
SURENDER BHATIA & ORS.			..... Petitioners
Through versus	Mr. Sha	Uttam Datt rma, Advs.	and Mr. Tarun

¶6

ARB.P. 589/2018 & Connected

¶7

Pg. 2 of 7

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

¶9

..... Respondents Through Mr.Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, CGP and Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Adv. for UOI. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 638/2018 SAROJ DEVI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OFINDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 639/2018 SAROJ & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 640/2018 DURGESH RANA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus

¶10

ARB.P. 589/2018 & Connected

¶11

Pg. 3 of 7

¶12

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

¶13

..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI.

¶14

+ ARB.P. 641/2018

¶15

NAVEEN GREWAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI.

¶16

+ ARB.P. 642/2018

¶17

VIRENDRA SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms. Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 643/2018 AMARJEET RANA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun

¶18

ARB.P. 589/2018 & Connected

¶19

Pg. 4 of 7

¶20

Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms. Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 644/2018 BALWAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 645/2018 ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms. Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI. + ARB.P. 646/2018 RAJPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun

¶21

ARB.P. 589/2018 & Connected

Pg. 5 of 7

Sharma, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

¶26

Through

¶27

..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Ms. Kashish Bajaj, Adv for R-1. Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI.

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶29

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶30

1 These are petitions in which recourse has been taken to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘1996 Act’). The petitioners claim that despite notice having been issued to the respondents, there has been no movement in the matter.

¶31

2 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, says that in view of the provisions of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 being in operation, the captioned petitions are not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, this aspect of the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of: General Manager (Project), National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Pradhan & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2018, dated 16.05.2018. Furthermore, attention has also been drawn to the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2018 in a batch of petitions; the lead petition being Arb. P. No.696/2018.

¶32

3 The respondents, in my view, are right and, therefore, these

¶33

Pg. 6 of 7

¶34

ARB.P. 589/2018 & Connected

¶35

petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be available to them in law.

¶36