ARB.P./639/2018 of SAROJ & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

$~2 to 16

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. Sharma, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Mahender Kr. Bhardwaj and Ms.Vinita Kumar Ashutosh, Advs. for R-1. 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. Sharma, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs. Mr.Abhinav Tyagi and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advs.

Ms. Kritika Shukla, Adv for NHAI.

+ ARB.P. 591/2018 & I.A. No.10818/2018SURENDER RANA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. Sharma, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Uttam Datt and Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advs. versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

+ ARB.P. 641/2018

+ ARB.P. 642/2018VIRENDRA SINGH & ORS.

+ ARB.P. 643/2018AMARJEET RANA

..... 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.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

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.

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 batch of petitions; the lead petition being Arb. P. No.696/2018.

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

petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be available to them in law. 4 Accompanying applications shall, accordingly, stand closed.

OCTOBER 12, 2018

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J