Meena Advertisers Section 34 Petition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S MEENA ADVERTISERS …PETITIONER
VERSUS
DELHI METRO RAIL
CORPORATION LTD. …RESPONDENT
MASTER INDEX
INDEX - PART - I
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Index-I
2. Urgent Application
3. Notice of Motion
4. Court Fee
5. Memo of Parties
6. Synopsis and List of Dates
7. Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act,1996, along with Affidavit
8. Statement of Truth by way of Affidavit
INDEX - PART II
1. Index-II
2. Application under Section 151 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 for exemption with
supporting Affidavit
INDEX - PART III
1. Index-III
2. Vakalatnama
INDEX - PART IV
S. Details of Documents Originals or Mode of Line of Page

No Documents in Power, Photocopies Execution Custody No’s
to Parties Possession, or Office Issuance or
Control, Copies Receipt
Custody of
1. Index-IV
2. Original Petitioner Copy Award Petitioner

Copy of and made by and
the Award Respondent the Responde
dated Learned nt
23.10.2019 Sole
passed by Arbitrator
Learned
Arbitrator’
s
(Document-
1)
3. copy of Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

‘Tender and Petitioner and
Document Respondent and Responde
for received by nt
Awarding Responden
Exclusive t
Advertisin
g Rights of
Delhi
Metro
Trains on
Line No. 5
& 6 in
DMRC
Network’
(Documen
t-2)
4. copy of Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner
Statement and petitioner and
of Claim Respondent before the Responde
along with Ld.Arbitral nt
all the Tribunal.
documents
filed by the
Petitioner
before the
Ld.
Arbitral
Tribunal
(Documen
t-3)
5. Copies of Petitioner Copy Filed by Responde
Reply to and Responden nt and
Statement Respondent t and Petitioner
of Claim received by
and Petitioner
Counter
Claim filed
by the
Responden
t alongwith
(Documen
t-4)
6. Copies of Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner
the and Petitioner and
Rejoinder Respondent and Responde
to the received by nt
Reply of Responden
Responden t
t
(Documen
t-5)
Reply to and Petitioner and
the Respondent and Responde
Counter received by nt
Claim filed Responden
by the t
Responden
t.
(Documen
t-6)

evidence and Petitioner and
affidavit of Respondent and Responde
CW1(Docu received by nt
ment-7) Responden
t
evidence and Responden and
affidavit of Respondent t and Responde
CW2 received by nt
(Documen Petitioner
t-8)

affidavit of Respondent and Responde
Cross received by nt
examinatio Responden
n of CW 1 t
& CW 2
(Documen
t-9)
11. Copies of Respondent Copy Filed by Petitioner

affidavit of Petitioner and Responde
RW1 and received by nt
cross Responden
examinatio t
n of RW1
(Documen
t-10)
written and Petitioner and
submission Respondent and Responde
s filed by received by nt
Petitioner Responden
on t
08.04.2019
(Documen
t-11)
Note:
1. Certified that the soft copy filed herewith is a replica of hard
copy filed.
PETITIONER
THROUGH
NEW DELHI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

DATED: .08.2018 (Counsel for Petitioner)
D-298, Defence Colony,
New Delhi – 110024
Email: anil.mishra.adv@gmail.com
PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
M/S KALA MINES AND MINERALS …PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/S CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA
LIMITED ...RESPONDENT
INDEX - PART - I
1. Urgent Application
2. Notice of Motion
3. Court Fee
4. Memo of Parties
5. Synopsis and List of Dates
6. Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act,1996, along with Affidavit
7. Statement of Truth by way of Affidavit
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS

INDEX - PART II
1. Application under Section 151 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908, for exemption along
with supporting Affidavit
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS

INDEX - PART III
1. Vakalatnama
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS

INDEX - PART IV
S. Details of Documents Originals or Mode of Line of Page

No Documents in Power, Photocopies Execution Custody No’s
to Parties Possession, or Office Issuance or
Control, Copies Receipt
Custody of
1. Original Petitioner Original Award Petitioner
Copy of the and made by and
Award Respondent the Responden
dated Learned t
18/08/2017 Sole
passed by Arbitrator
Learned
Sole
Arbitrator
Mr. Ajit
Shukla
(Annexure
P1)
2. True Copy Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

of statement and Petitioner and
of claim Respondent and Responden
along with received by t
documents Respondent
filed by the
Petitioner
before the
Ld.
Arbitrator
(Annexure
P2)
3. True Copies Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

of Reply to and Respondent and
Statement Respondent and Responden
of Claim received by t
and Counter Petitioner.
Claim filed
by the
Respondent.
[Annexure
P3] (Colly)

of the and Petitioner and
Rejoinder to Respondent and Responden
the Reply of received by t
Respondent. Respondent
(Annexure
P4)

of Reply to and Petitioner and
the Counter Respondent and Responden
Claim filed received by t
by the Respondent
Respondent.
(Annexure
P5)
6. True Copies Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

of evidence and Petitioner and
affidavit of Respondent and Responden
CW1 and its received by t
cross Respondent
examination
.
(Annexure
P6)
(Colly)

of written and Petitioner and
submissions Respondent and Responden
filed by received by t
Petitioner Respondent
before the
Ld.
Arbitrator.
(Annexure
P7)

of written and Respondent and
submissions Respondent and Responden
filed by the received by t
Respondent Petitioner
before the
Ld.
Arbitrator.
(Annexure
P8)
Application Respondent and Responden
dated received by t
18.04.2016 Respondent
filed before
Ld.
Arbitrator
seeking
pronouncem
ent of the
Award
within
reasonable
time.
(Annexure
P9)

application Respondent and Responden
filed by the received by t
Petitioner Respondent
under
section 9 of
the Act
before this
Hon’ble
Court
seeking
direction for
pronouncem
ent of
award.
(Annexure
P10)
11. Certified Petitioner Certified Order Petitioner

Copy of the and Copy passed by and
order dated Respondent this Responden
18.01.2017 Hon’ble t
passed by Court.
this Hon’ble
Court.
(Annexure
P11)

of and Petitioner and
application Respondent and Responden
dated received by t
02.04.2018 Respondent
for revival
of Section 9
petition
filed before
this Hon’ble
Court.
(Annexure
P12)
13. Certified Petitioner Copy Order Petitioner

Copy of the and passed by and
order dated Respondent this Responden
10.04.2018 Hon’ble t
passed by Court
this Hon’ble
Court.
(Annexure
P13)
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2019
In the Matter of:
VERSUS

URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi, Delhi
Dear Sir,
Kindly treat this Petition as urgent one as per the Rules of Delhi
High Court.

DATED: 10 .07.2019 (Counsel for Petitioner)

PHONE NO. 9811312972

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. __420___ OF 2019
In the Matter of:
VERSUS

NOTICE OF MOTION
Sir,
Take Note that the accompanying Petition is being filed on behalf of

the Petitioners and the same is likely to be listed on 18.07.2019 with
main matter or soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Hon’ble
Court.

DATED: 10.07.2019 (Counsel for Petitioner)

PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS

COURT FEE
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2019
In the Matter of:
VERSUS
DELHI METRO RAIL
MEMO OF PARTIES
M/s Meean Advertisers,

New No. 66, Old No. 142,
Eldams Road, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018 …PETITIONER
VERSUS
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
“Metro Bhavan”,
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road
New Delhi-110001 …RESPONDENT
FILED BY:
PETITIONER
THROUGH

DATED: .01.2020 & IDRISH MOHAMMED
(Counsel for Petitioner)
PHONE NO. 9811312972
SYNOPSIS
The Petitioner is a partnership firm based in Chennai and is engaged
in the business of advertisement and has extensive experience in the
field. The Petitioner has its business across the country in the area of
advertisement working with various public sector undertakings. The
Petitioner is prosecuting its rights against an illegal termination of the
contract by the Respondent wherein the Petitioner faced huge loss due
to the wrongful conduct of the Respondent. The Ld. Arbitral Tribunal
has passed the impugned award without any application of mind
which error is apparent on the face of the award. The impugned award
is contradictory itself wherein the Tribunal admits illegal termination
of the contract but denies all kinds of claims with respect to the said
contract.
Brief Facts:
The Respondent, being a joint corporation of Centre-State, had invited
a Request For Proposal (RFP) for “Exclusive Advertising Rights of
Delhi Metro Trains on Line Nos. 5 & 6 (i.e. the Violet and the Green
Line) in DMRC Network” in May, 2014. The Petitioner being the
highest bidder was permitted to inspect the trains and take
measurements of the panels to enable them to proceed further with

their operational requirements.
The Respondent issued Letter of Acceptance (LoA) to the Petitioner
who submitted requisite Bank Guarantee for Rs. 2,50,65,000/- on
25.09.2014. As per the tender conditions/LoA, the signing of License
Agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent was to be
completed within 30 days of submissions of the Bank Guarantee, but
the signing of the License Agreement delayed and it could be signed
only after a delay of 48 delays, i.e., on 10.12.2014. Such delay caused
huge loss of profit to the Petitioner.
The commissioning of Faridabad line of metro was promised to be on
31.05.2015, which was delayed by the Respondent and the same was
never informed to the Petitioner nor was informed regarding the
future date of commissioning.
The Petitioner wrote to the Respondent many a times with respects to
the following issues:
i. Misrepresentation of in
ii. formation on DMRC’s website regarding the rates quoted by
EGC in another Contract.
iii. Awarding Semi-naming rights for Faridabad metro stations.
iv. Delay in Signing of License Agreement.
v. Delay in Commissioning of Faridabad Section.
vi. Difference between Footfall and Ridership
vii. Non-Issuance of letter of permission to work inside depots.
viii. Complete inaction of DMRC on negative Propaganda by EG
Communication.
The Claimant sought to negotiate mainly the following terms to

enable them to execute the contract successfully:
a) Reduction in License Fee.

b) Refund of License Fee collected for June 2015.
c) Refund of License Fee for delay in signing of License Agreement.
d) A one year gestation period from the date of commissioning of the
Faridabad section.
e) Waiver of the 5% escalation for three years from the date of
commissioning of the Faridabad section.
f) No increase in license fees for the entire duration of the contract
irrespective of the actual number of coaches in operation.
g) De-linking the green line from the contract.
h) Compensation for withholding of wrapped train in depots.
i) Exit Option.
While the process of negotiation for relief measures with respect to
the original contract was going on, the Respondent started sending
notices stating that the Petitioner had failed to make payments and in
case no payment is made, the Respondent would be invoking 30 days
termination period under the License Agreement. The Petitioner was

also refused Depot Entry Pass by the Respondent.
Apprehending that the Respondent will terminate the contract and
invoke its bank guarantee, the Petitioner filed a petition being O.M.P.
(I) No. 344 of 2015 under section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The same was
dismissed.
Thereafter the Respondent again issued a notice to the Petitioner
cautioning that if payment is not made within 30 days, the Agreement
would stand terminated.
The Petitioner filed an appeal being FAO (OS) No. 480/2015 before
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
In the meanwhile, the Respondent issued invalid passes valid from
03.07.2015 to 30.09.2015 to the Petitioner which lacked the
Respondent’s seal, thereby, having no purpose of it. Later, the
Respondent communicated to the Petitioner regarding the earlier
representations sent by the Petitioner admitting that there were issues
and it required negotiations.
The Respondent later terminated the agreement in completely illegal

manner with effect from 16.08.2015 and the Petitioner was directed to
vacate the advertisement spaces by 14.09.2015. The Respondent was
issued fresh depot entry pass with a validity of 5 days, thereby
admitting the earlier passes were invalid.
The Petitioner’s appeal in FAO (OS) No. 408/2015 was disposed of
by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which allowed encashment of the
Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 75,00,000/- while granting a stay
on the remaining value of the Bank Guarantee but it was made clear
that this encashment was without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of both parties in arbitration proceedings.
In compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the
Petitioner invoked the Arbitration clause of the License Agreement
and requested the Respondent to take appropriate steps for
constitution of Arbitral Tribunal. In the meanwhile the Respondent
awarded the new advertising contract for Line 5 & 6 to E.G.
Communication at a huge discount which included the Faridabad
extension for No. 6.
The Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for
appointment of Arbitral Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed.

An appeal in form of SLP was made before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by the Petitioner. The same was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Later, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal entered into reference and
adjudicated the disputes between the parties.
It is submitted that the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal has vaguely rejected the
claims of the Petitioner, without proper appreciation of evidence.
Petitioner has a strong prima facie case to claim the amount so
mentioned in the Claim Petition. The grounds to challenge the
impugned order are detailed below in point wise fashion:
I. The impugned order is not a detailed order and no proper
observations of the claim have been made by the Ld. Arbitral
Tribunal. The Ld. Arbitral Tribunal has not given any proper
justification for not considering the judgments relied upon by
the Petitioner.
II. In a recent judgment passed on 26.07.2018 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7240 of 2018
titled as ‘Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite
Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Court iterated the need of a reasoned

order.
III. The Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, even while holding the termination
of the contract illegal in nature, did not award the relief sought
by the Petitioner which is against the public policy of India.
IV. The Ld. Arbitral Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner regarding damages for delay in signing of the
License Agreement of Rs. 56,32,607/- because the same was
signed with a delay of 48 days on the part of the Respondent,
due to which the advertisement could not pasted on the marked
spots leading to losses to the Petitioner.
V. It was agreed that the Faridabad section would be ready for
commissioning by 31.05.2015 but the same was not done by the
Respondent till illegal termination of the contract by the
Respondent.
VI. That despite holding the termination of contract illegal by the
Respondent, the Arbitral Tribunal did not consider any claim of
the Petitioner with regard to damages.

VII. The Petitioner was denied Depot Entry Pass by the Respondent,
thereby, the Petitioner’s right to access the Depots was
malafidely denied and the rights were frustrated. And even
when the Passes were issued on 22.07.2015 (dated 03.07.2015)
and received by the Petitioner on 01.08.2015, they were invalid
because of not having required seal of the authority and were
on a plain white paper. Thus they were of no use.
VIII. The Respondent awarded the new advertising contract for Line
No. 5 & 6 to E.G. Communication at a huge discount and in
this award, the Line No. 6 was fully commissioned for
advertisement. The Petitioner was paying Rs. 2,10,546/- per
coach as license fee, while the new tender awarded to E.G.
Communication was done only at Rs. 1,03,500/-. This was
nothing but a complete fraud on the Petitioner and the malafide
act of illegal termination was done in order to then award the
same contract at this deep discount to its favoured contractor
E.G. Communication. The documents before the Ld. Arbitral
Tribunal regarding how this subsequent tender was awarded
clearly demonstrates procedural lapses and how the tender price

was lowered from Rs.1,47,38,627 to Rs.60,00,000 after bids
were received while the highest bid suspiciously turned out to
be Rs.60,06,000.
IX. The Petitioners in terms of Section 53 and 73 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, was entitled towards the aforesaid claim. It
is humbly submitted that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal
disallowed the aforesaid claims without appreciating the facts
of the case, law, proper reasoning, analysis and application of
mind.
X. Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
requires the Arbitral Tribunal to act in accordance with the
fundamental policy of the Indian law. The Petitioner seeks
reliance on Food Corporation of India Vs Chandu
Construction and Anr (2007) 4 SCC 597, MSK Projects (I)
(JV) Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2979.

LIST OF DATES
Date Particulars
May, 2014 The Respondent invited a Request For Proposal (RFP)
for “Exclusive Advertising Rights of Delhi Metro
Trains, on Line Nos. 5 & 6 (i.e. the Violet and the
Green Line) in DMRC network”
15.07.2015 The Tender was opened in which 3 bidders participated.
The Petitioner was the highest bidder.
04.08.2014 The Petitioner requested the Respondent that the
Petitioner, being the highest bidder, may be permitted
to inspect the trains and take measurements of the
panels to enable them to proceed further with their
operational requirements.
05.08.2014 The Respondent allowed the Petitioner to inspect the
trains and take measurements of the panels to enable
them to proceed further with their operational
requirements for 10 days starting from 05.08.2014.
27.08.2014 The Respondent issued Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to
the Petitioner.
25.09.2014 The Petitioner submitted requisite Bank Guarantee for
Rs. 2,50,65,000/- dated 23.09.2014
08.10.2014 The Respondent made available trains for posting of
advertisements and work.
10.12.2014 As per the tender conditions/LOA, the singing of
License Agreement was to be completed within 30 days
of submission of the Bank Guarantee, but the signing of
LA was delayed.
11.12.2014 The Respondent handed over the Signed Agreement to
the Petitioner.
01.06.2015 The Petitioner made representations to the Respondent
18.06.2015 highlighting the alleged difficulties being faced in
22.06.2015 execution of works as per LA.
29.06.2015
10.07.2015 The Petitioner made a ‘Request for renegotiation of
terms of LA’, since no satisfactory solution to the
problems was not coming forth from the Respondent.
The Petitioner highlighted the following main
circumstances in the said letter:
i. Misrepresentation of information on DMRC’s
website regarding the license fee paid by EG
Communication.
ii. Awarding Semi-naming rights for Faridabad
metro stations.
iii. Delay in Signing of License Agreement.
iv. Delay in Commissioning of Faridabad Section.
v. Difference between Footfall and Ridership
vi. Non-Issuance of letter of permission to work
inside depots.
vii. Complete inaction of DMRC on negative
Propaganda by EG Communication.
The Claimant sought to negotiate mainly the following
terms to enable them to execute the contract
successfully:
a. Reduction in License Fee.
b. Refund of License Fee collected for June 2015.
c. Refund of License Fee for delay in signing of
License Agreement.
d. A one year gestation period from the date of
commissioning of the Faridabad section.
e. Waiver of the 5% escalation for three years from the
date of commissioning of the Faridabad section.
f. No increase in license fees for the entire duration of
the contract irrespective of the actual number of
coaches in operation.
g. De-linking the green line from the contract.
h. Compensation for withholding of wrapped train in
depots.
j) Exit Option.
30.06.2015 Due date for advance payment of license fee by the
Petitioner.
02.07.2015 When the Petitioner did not make the payment of
license fee for the quarter of July-Sept 2015, by
30.06.2015, the Respondent issued 15 days’ cure notice,
as per LA, with stipulation that “...if payment is not
made in time, clause no. 6.9.1 read with clause no.
13.1.3 will be invoked and 30 days termination letter as
per agreement will be served...”
However, it was the same Respondent Corporation that
was refusing to respond in writing to the Petitioner’s
correspondences for more than 30 days and refusing to
issue a depot pass, which was in complete violation of
the contract.
14.07.2015 The Petitioner being aggrieved by the negative response
of the Respondent, filed petition under section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, praying for an urgent interim order for:
(i) Restraining the Respondent from encashing the
Bank Guarantee dated 23.09.2014
(ii) To direct the Respondent to consider and act on
the representation of the Claimant dated
10.07.2015 as expeditiously as possible and
(iii) Direct that the parties are to maintain status quo
as on date pending the arbitration proceedings.
16.07.2015 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the
petitioner with observation that “...no case of egregious
fraud or special equities is made out by the petitioner.”
17.07.2015 Since the payment for quarter July-Sept 2015 was not
made by the Petitioner, the Respondent issued 30 days’
notice quoting Clause 6.9.4 of LA for termination of
LA, advising the Petitioner to make payments along
with interest @18%, failing which LA shall stand
terminated on expiry of the notice period and
mentioning that Security Deposit/Performance Security
shall also stand forfeited in favour of the Respondent.
However, the Respondent had still not responded to any
of the correspondences of the Petitioner and refused to
issue a depot pass in violation of the contract.
28.08.2015 The Respondent terminated the LA w.e.f. 16.08.2015
on non-payment of license fee along with interest by the
Petitioner and forfeited the interest free security
deposit/performance security in its favour.
23.07.2015 The Petitioner challenged the order dated 16.07.2015 of
Ld. Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi before
the Division Bench.
20.11.2015 The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
disposed of the appeal, allowing the Respondent to
encash the Performance Bank Guarantee for the amount
of Rs. 2.5 crore to the extent of Rs. 75 lakh and the
balance bank guarantee to be kept alive by the
Petitioner during the pendency of the arbitration
proceedings.
25.11.2015 The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause.
28.12.2015 The Respondent proposed a panel of five names and
called upon the Claimant to intimate the name of one of
them as nominee Arbitrator within seven days.
28.01.2016 In reply to the letter dated 28.12.2015, the Petitioner
requested that a former Judge of Hon’ble Supreme
Court or High Court be appointed as an Arbitrator.
15.02.2016 The Respondent, not agreeing with the contention of the
Petitioner, again referred to the relevant arbitration
clause of LA, and clarified that the Petitioner’s
suggestion that a former Judge of Hon’ble Supreme
Court or High Court be appointed as an Arbitrator, was
not acceptable to the Respondent. The Respondent once
again proposed a panel of five persons to the Petitioner
for nomination of one person as arbitrator. The
Petitioner did not agree and repeated the request that a
former judge be appointed as an Arbitrator.
09.01.2017 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the
Petitioner’s petition u/s 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal
by the Court to adjudicate the dispute.
13.04.2017 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP
filed against the order dated 09.01.2017 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
12.06.2017 The Ld. Arbitral Tribunal entered into reference to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
23.10.2019 The Arbitral Tribunal passed the impugned award.
__.01.2020 Hence, this Petition.
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2019
In the Matter of:
VERSUS
DELHI METRO RAIL
To,
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi
And His Companion Judges
PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION
AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, TO CHALLENGE THE
AWARD DATED 23.10.2019 AS PASSED BY LEARNED
LEARNED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, is being filed by the Petitioner against
the arbitral award dated 23.10.2019 passed by Learned Arbitral
Tribunalto the extent of the following:-
A. Wherein the Learned Arbitral Tribunalawarded only
Performance Bank Guarantee and has failed to grant the
damages for illegal termination of the contract by the
Respondent?
B. Wherein the Learned Arbitral Tribunal partially allowed
the claim of the Respondent towards payment of license
fee for a period during which all the rights of the
petitioner under the contract were denied by the
Respondent and despite holding that the termination was
illegal
C. Wherein the Learned Arbitral Tribunal rejected the claim
of Rs. 56,32,607/- towards damages for delay in signing
of the license agreement?
D. Wherein the Learned Arbitral Tribunal disallowed the
Claim towards damages for delay in commissioning of
the Faridabad Section on account of failure of the
Respondent?
E. Wherein the Learned Arbitral Tribunal disallowed the
Claim on account of fraud/misrepresentation by the
Respondent?
The Petitioners are not challenging the Award towards
maintainability of the claim petition. The Original Copy of the
Awarddated23.10.2019passed by Learned Arbitral Tribunalis
annexed herewith as Document-1.
PARTIES
2. The Petitioner is a sole proprietorship having its head office at
Old No. 142 New No. 66, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai-
600018 and having its regional office at 7 th Floor, Himalaya
House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 and is into
business of advertisement and has business across the country.
3. The Respondent is a Centre-State Public Sector Undertaking
incorporated in 1995 as a Company owned by Government of
India with the principal objective of achieving self-sufficiency
in cement production.
BRIEF FACTS
4. The Respondent had invited a Request For Proposal (RFP) for
“Exclusive Advertising Rights of Delhi Metro Trains, on Line
Nos. 5 & 6 (i.e. the Violet and the Green Line) in DMRC
network” in May, 2014. The Tender was opened on 15.07.2015
in which 3 bidders participated. The Claimant was the highest
bidder.
5. Line No. 5 covers West Delhi and is from Inderlok to Mundka
and the Respondent promised to extend this from Mundka to
Bahadurgarh by 01.03.2016. Line No. 6 covers part of Central
and South Delhi and was from Mandi House to Badarpur with
extensions from Badarpur to Faridabad to open by 31.05.2015
and from Mandi House to Kashmere Gate to open by
30.11.2015. Both the extensions were promised by the
Respondent in the contract.
6. It is worthwhile to mention here that back in 2010-11 M/s
Traffic Media won the first ever tender rights awarded for Lines
No. 5 & 6. However, it has its contract terminated by the

Respondent within 6 months. And despite floating multiple
tenders for Lines No. 5 & 6, the Respondent failed to award a
contract for advertising rights on these lines after termination of
Traffic Media’s contract.
7. The Claimant vide letter dated 04.08.2014 requested the
Respondent that the Claimant, being the highest bidder, may be
permitted to inspect the trains and take measurements of the
panels to enable them to proceed further with their operational
requirements. The same was permitted by the Respondent for
10 days starting from 05.08.2014.
8. That while the Petitioner was making an assessment during
which it came to learn that M/s E.G. Communication Pvt. Ltd.
had a monopoly over metro train advertising and held the rights
for lines no. 1, 2, 3 & 4. Since the Respondent has on the tender
section of its own website the license fee paid by E.G.
Communication for metro train advertising in the Respondent’s
network, the Claimant thereafter on this information in order to
arrive at its bid. As per the information on the website, E.G.
Communication paid Rs. 27.99 crores for about 500 coaches on
Line 3 (Noida to Dwarka) which is the longest and most sought

after line for advertising.
Delay in Signing of the License Agreement by the Respondent
9. That the Petitioner placed a bid of Rs. 5.01 crores as Annual
License Fees for his tender and emerged successful. A Letter of
Acceptance (hereinafter as “LoA”) was issued on 26.08.2014.
The Petitioner through its letter dated 30.08.2014 fulfilled the
initial conditions of the LoA, including accepting the award of
tender and mailing across two non-judicial stamp papers dated
30.08.2014 for the purpose of the Respondent executing the
license agreement. The Petitioner submitted Bank Guarantee
dated 23.09.2014 bearing No. 01392IG140000017 dated
29.09.2014 of value Rs. 2,50,65,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty
Lakh and Sixty Five Thousand only), i.e, half the annual license
fee. A copy of ‘Tender Document for Awarding Exclusive
Advertising Rights of Delhi Metro Trains on Line No. 5 & 6 in
DMRC Network’ is attached herewith and marked as
Document-2.
10. It is pertinent to mention that as per clause 3.6 of the RFP as
mentioned in the LoA dated 26.08.2014, the License

Agreement was to be entered into within 30 days of payment of
dues as per LoA, i.e., upon furnishing of the Bank Guarantee.
However, the Respondent took no action for the same. With the
submission of the non-judicial stamp papers on 01.09.2014, the
responsibility of the Claimant with respect to execution of
agreement was over.
11. The agreement was eventually signed on 10.12.2014 and only
handed over to the Claimant on 11.12.2014, i.e., after a delay of
48 days. Due to this delay, the Claimant’s DAVP Application
was delayed and the Claimant could not get DAVP Approval,
which caused major financial losses to the Petitioner.
Delay in Commissioning of Faridabad Extension by the
Respondent
12. As per Clause 5.4 of RFP, the Respondent promised
commissioning of Faridabad line of the metro. However, the
same was delayed. In addition to that, the Petitioner was never
informed about any date in the future on which this extension
of Faridabad would be commissioned.
Representations made by the Petitioner seeking relief that went

unanswered until 23.07.2015
13. On 01.06.2015, the Petitioner made a representation to the
Respondent bringing to light the difficulties it was facing in the
light of the numerous breaches of obligations on part of the
Respondent. It requested among other relief measures a
gestation period of one year with respect to license fee.
14. On 04.06.2015, the Petitioner’s representative Mr. Praveen
Krishnamurthy met with the Director (Operations) of the
Respondent with regard to the difficulties it was facing and for
which the Director (Operations) assured looking into and
consider the same.
15. On 18.06.2015, the Petitioner again made a representation to
the Respondent bringing to light further difficulties it was
facing in light of the numerous breaches of obligations on part
of the Respondent, as no remedy was being made available to
the Petitioner.
16. On 19.06.2015, the Petitioner’s proprietor Mr. V.
Krishnamurthy and its representatives Mr. Praveen
Krishnamurthy met with the Director (Operations) of the
Respondent with regard to the difficulties it was facing.

Considering the delay in commissioning of the Faridabad line
and other difficulties faced by the Petitioner, the Director
(Operations) in order to persuade the Petitioner to continue the
contract assured the Petitioner that the terms of the contract can
be renegotiated. For the same, the Director (Operations)
suggested that he would provide a 6 months gestation period
starting 01.07.2015, upon submission of a letter from the
Petitioner requesting the same.
17. In accordance with the discussions held with the Director
(Operations) on 19.06.2015, the Petitioner submitted another
representation on 22.06.2015, this time requesting for a 6
month gestation period in addition to 3 other requests.
18. The Petitioner wrote to the Respondent on 29.06.2015
requesting for the renewal of permission for entry to depots that
was necessary for mounting and de-mounting advertisements.
Refusal by the Respondent to Issue Depot Entry Pass and
Subsequent Issuance of Invalid Notices by the Respondent
19. That while the process of negotiation for relief measures with
respect to the original contract was going on, the Assistant

Manager (Property Business) of the Respondent sent a notice
dated 02.07.2015 stating that the Petitioner had failed to make
payments and that in case the outstanding payments are not
made within a period of 15 days, it would be invoking the 30
days termination period under the License Agreement.
20.It is pertinent to mention here that on one hand the Director
(Operations) of Respondent was renegotiating the contract to
provide a 6-month gestation period while on the other hand the
Respondent’s Assistant Manager (Properly Business) was
deliberately threatening to terminate the Petitioner’s contract if
the license fee for the period of 01.07.2015 to 30.09.2015 was
not paid.
21.It is submitted that the action of the Respondent to issue this
notice demanding payment for the period of 01.07.2015 to
30.09.2015 without opening the Faridabad Section as promised
by 31.05.2015 is arbitrary and unacceptable as the Respondent
had failed to meet its own obligations as per the contract.
However, the Respondent had not yet issued any valid depot
permission letter to the Petitioner.
22.However, later the Director (Operations) back-tracked from his

earlier promise and refused to provide any relief to the
Petitioner. It is important to mention here that the Petitioner’s
claim for 6-months gestation period was never rejected in
writing by the Respondent till this point.
Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act Proceedings by the
Petitioner before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
23.It is submitted that the Petitioner filed a Petitioner being OMP
(I) No. 344 of 2015 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under section
9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, under the apprehension
that the Respondent will terminate the contract and invoke its
bank guarantee. However, the same was dismissed.
24.The Petitioner filed an appeal being FAO (OS) No. 408/2015
before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
The Invalid Depot Entry Passes Issued by the Respondent
25.It is submitted that the Respondent issued an invalid pass dated
03.07.2015 to the Petitioner on 01.08.2015. However, it was
issued on a plain white paper and lacked the Respondent’s seal,
which is the only sign of its authenticity. Therefore, the
Claimant’s right to access the Depots was malafidely denied

and the Claimant’s right were frustrated.
Illegal Termination of the License Agreement of the Petitioner by
the Respondent
26.The Respondent through its letter dated 28.08.2015 informed
the Petitioner that the agreement had been terminated with
effect from 16.08.2015. The Petitioner was further directed to
vacate the advertisement spaces by 14.09.2015.
Issuance of New Depot Entry Pass by the Respondent for
10.09.2015 to 14.09.2015 while earlier pass was purportedly valid
from 03.07.2015 to 30.09.2015
27.The Petitioner wrote the Respondent on 09.09.2015 pointing
out that it had not been issued a valid depot pass to vacate the
advertisement spaces since the pass dated 03.07.2015
(purportedly valid till 30.09.2015) did not have Respondent’s
seal. Therefore, the Respondent issued a depot pass valid from
10.09.2015 till 14.09.2015.
Vacating the Advertisement Spaces
28.The Petitioner vacated the advertisement spaces in Sarita Vihar

Depot (Line 6) on 13.09.2015 and in Mundka Depot (Line 5).
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Appeal Proceedings
29.The Petitioner’s appeal in FAO (OS) 408/2015 was disposed of
on 20.11.2015 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which allowed
encashment of the Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.
75,00,000/- while granting a stay on the remaining value of the
Bank Guarantee. The Hon’ble High Court made it clear that
this encashment was without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of both parties in arbitration proceedings.
30.It is submitted that as per the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court by its order dated 20.11.2015 the Petitioner invoked
the Arbitration clause of the License Agreement and requested
the Respondent to take appropriate steps for constitution of the
Arbitral Tribunal.
New Tender for Lines 5 and 6 manipulated and awarded in a
malafide manner to E.G. Communication by the Respondent
31.The Respondent awarded the new advertising contract for Line
5 and 6 to E.G. Communication at a huge discount. The
Petitioner, at the time of its illegal termination by the

Respondent, was paying Rs.2,10,546/- per coach as license fee.
The new tender awarded to E.G. Communication was done so
for only Rs. 1,03,500/- per coach. The Respondent did not try
to call multiple tenders to establish that this was the market
rate; it simply manipulated its own opaque, unpublished,
internal reserve fee to award the tender at an incredible
discount, clearly indicating that donating the contract to E.G.
Communication. The new tender also had a more complete
Line 6 from ITO to Faridabad, covering Central Delhi, South
Delhi and Faridabad as against the incomplete, small line that
the Petitioner had from Mandi House to Badarpur.
Constitution of Learned Arbitral Tribunal
32.The Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by
way of Arb. Pet. No. 772 of 2016 seeking appointment of
arbitrators. However, the same was dismissed on 09.01.2016.
33.An appeal against the dismissal order was made by the
Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No.
6068 of 2017. The same was dismissed vide order dated
13.04.2017.
Commencement of Arbitration Proceedings
34. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal entered into reference to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties on 12.07.2017.
35. The Arbitration proceedings commenced in 12.07.2017 and
several Claims were submitted on 11.08.2017 by the Claimant
vide its Statement of Claim for the value of Rs. 25,95,13,953/-
including interest thereupon. A copy of Statement of Claim
along with all the documents filed by the Petitioner before the
Ld. Arbitral Tribunal is annexed herewith as Document-3.
36. In reply to the averments of the Petitioner, Statement of
Defencealongwith Counter Claim was filed on 16.09.2017 by
the Respondent. It was alleged that the claim of the Petitioner
was not maintainable and that the Respondent is not liable to
pay any amount. It was further alleged in the Counter Claim
filed by the Respondent that Petitioner is instead liable to
compensate the Respondent for various claims as claimed in the
Statement of Counter Claim. Copies of Reply to Statement of
Claim and Counter Claim filed by the Respondent alongwith
documents are annexed herewith as Document-4.

37. On 06.10.2017, Petitioner, while reiterating the averments
made in the Claim Petition, filed its Rejoinder to the Reply of
Respondent and Reply to the Counter Claim filed by the
Respondent. Copies of the Rejoinder to the Reply of
Respondent and Reply to the Counter Claim filed by the
Respondent are annexed herewith as Document-5 and
Document-6 respectively.
38. Subsequent to the completion of pleadings, the following
claims of the Petitioner were adjudicated:
a) Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for delay in
signing of the license agreement?
b) Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for delay in
commissioning of the Faridabad Section?
c) Whether the Claimant is entitled to get return of the entire
performance Bank Guarantee under the License
Agreement?
d) Whether the Claimant is entitled on account of Fraud/
Misrepresentation?
e) Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages on account of

illegal termination of the contract?
f) Whether the Claimant is entitled to loss of profit?
g) Whether the Claimant is entitled to interest pendent lite on
the claims at 18% per annum?
h) Whether the Claimant is entitled to cost of arbitration?
39. The Petitioner produced two witnesses, CW1 Mr. Praveen
Krishnamurthy and CW2 Mrs. Aruna Kannan, in support of its
contentions. The said witnesses were duly cross examined by
the Respondent. It is submitted that the claims of the Petitioner
were further substantiated by the witnesses so examined.
Copies of evidence affidavit of CW1, and CW2 and cross
examination of CW1 and CW2 are annexed herewith as
Document-7, Document-8, Document-9 respectively.
40. As the Respondent produced Sri. Rishi Raj as RW1 in support
of its contentions. Copies of evidence affidavit of RW1 and
cross examination of RW1 are annexed herewith as Document-
10
41. The evidence of the parties was concluded and subsequently
oral arguments were completed in 19.03.2019 and the award

was reserved. With due permission from the Ld. Arbitral
Tribunal, both the parties submitted their written
arguments/submissions. The written submissions were filed by
the Petitioner on 08.04.2019 and by Respondent on 29.04.2019.
Copies of written submissions filed by Petitioner and written
submissions filed by the Respondent are annexed herewith as
Document-11 and Document-12 respectively.
42. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal finally passed the award on
23.10.2019 and the said award was communicated to Petitioner
vide letter dated 23.10.2019 on 24.10.2019.
43. It is submitted that the impugned award dated 23.10.2019
passed by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal wherein the Ld.
Arbitral Tribunal erroneously dismissed all the claims except
for return of Performance Bank Guarantee. The Ld. Arbitral
Tribunal despite holding the termination of the contract as
“illegal” did not consider any of the Petitioner’s related claims
for damages on account of illegal termination.
44. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the Award dated 23.10.2019

passed by Learned Arbitral Tribunalchallenges it on the
following amongst other grounds:-
GROUNDS
A. Because the impugned arbitral award dated 23.10.2019 is
against the principles propounded in ONGC vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
(2003) 5 SCC 705, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“B. (1) The impugned award requires to be set aside

mainly on the grounds:--
(i) there is specific stipulation in the agreement that the
time and date of delivery of the goods was the essence of
the contract;
(ii) in case of failure to deliver the goods within the
period fixed for such delivery in the schedule, ONGC
was entitled to recover from the contractor liquidated
damages as agreed;
(iii) it was also explicitly understood that the agreed
liquidated damages were genuine pre-estimate of
damages;
(iv) on the request of the respondent to extend the time
limit for supply of goods, ONGC informed specifically
that time was extended but stipulated liquidated damages
as agreed would be recovered;
(v) liquidated damages for delay in supply of goods were
to be recovered by paying authorities from the bills for
payment of cost of material supplied by the contractor;
(vi) there is nothing on record to suggest that stipulation
for recovering liquidated damages was by way of penalty
or that the said sum was in any way unreasonable.
(vii) In certain contracts, it is impossible to assess the
damages or prove the same. Such situation is taken care
by Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act and in the
present case by specific terms of the contract.”
B. Because the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal ignored the judgement of
Maula Bux vs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554 wherein it
was held:
“...It is true that in every case of breach of contract the

person aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove
actual loss or damage suffered by him before he can
claim a decree, and the Court is competent to award
reasonable compensation in case of breach even if no
actual damage is proved to have been suffered in
consequence of the breach of contract. But the
expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is
proved to have been caused thereby" is intended to cover
different classes of contracts which come before the
Courts.”
C. Because the impugned arbitral award dated 23.10.2019 is
against the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
D. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate the
delay caused in signing the License agreement by the
Respondent, in complete violation of the contractual terms,

which resulted in the Petitioner losing various advertisements
contracts like Swatch Bharat Campaign, War against corruption
campaign, etc. which required DAVP’s permission. The
Petitioner’s DAVP application could not be field at all as a
signed agreement was a compulsory condition for the same and
with this application delayed, the Petitioner lost central
government and PSU business.
E. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the delay in commissioning of Faridabad Extension by the
Respondent. The said commissioning was to take place by
31.05.2015 but never happened until the illegal termination of
the contract on 16.08.2015, and hence, led to the loss of
revenue to the Petitioner as demonstrated through work orders
given to the Petitioner by its clients that were conditional on the
Faridabad extension being commissioned.
F. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate the
back tracking by the Respondent with regard to 6 Months
Gestation period as promised by the Director (Operations) of
the Respondent which misled the Petitioner.
G. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal has erred in not allowing

all the claims of the petitioner regarding illegal termination of
the contract by the Respondent despite holding the termination
of the contact as illegal. The Petitioner has claimed damages for
illegal termination in the form of the losses it suffered in
running the contract till the date of illegal termination. The
same was substantiated by audited book of accounts and further
substantiated by the testimonies of CW1 and CW2.
H. Because though the learned Arbitral Tribunal appreciated that
the Petitioners were not issued valid depot entry passes for the
period 01.07.2015 till 16.08.2015 for which period the
Respondent claimed license fee (under counter claim no.1), the
learned Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to arbitrarily award 50% of
the claim for a period in which the Petitioner enjoyed no rights
under the contract and was prevented in a malafide manner
from doing business by the same Respondent. The learned
Tribunal in an entirely arbitrary manner holds in Para 12.3.1
that the “the advertising panels and materials already on trains
continued to fetch revenues for which the Respondent never
objected.” It is stated that this is wholly unsubstantiated while
the Petitioner produced audited book of accounts substantiated

by CW1 and CW2 to show it had earned no revenue for the
same period. The learned Arbitral Tribunal has overlooked this
evidence and at no point asked the Petitioner to specifically
counter the point of revenue earned for this period as it was
self-evident that the Claimant had no rights for the same. With
no depot entry pass and the entire contract under dispute, it
meant that the Petitioner’s clients never paid the Petitioner for
this period. Furthermore, the actual counter claim made in this
regard by the Respondent was Rs.76,63,759 and the learned
Arbitral Tribunal arbitrarily held that in Para 12.3.1 that the
Petitioner should pay 50% as it “Since the claimant availed the
facility of the Respondent as per LA by continuing the
advertisements already available in the trains in the intervening
period of 01.07.2015 and 18.08.2015 though at the same time it
did not have permit to enter the depot for maintaining, changing
of advertisement panel in depot, therefore AT is of the view
that the Claimant is liable to pay a reasonable sum of the
license fee for this period.” This is contradictory on the face of
it. It is unjust and arbitrary as the Petitioner had no means to
remove the said advertisements without the depot pass that had
been illegally denied by the Respondent and cannot be
punished for an action that is not under its control. Furthermore,
the Respondent cannot be allowed to benefit from a contractual
violation that it has committed. Ultimately, the Petitioner has
shown it earned no revenue for the said period and it was never
given a fair chance by the learned Tribunal to counter these
points as the learned Tribunal has simply ruled thus in its final
judgment without giving the Petitioner a fair chance to do so.
I. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the same tender/contract was awarded to M/s E.g.
Communication at a huge discount or in other words half of the
money which was actually being paid by the petitioner without
following procedures and twisting norms to lower the reserve
price after accepting bids to favour E.G. Communication.
J. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the Petitioner was being charged License Fees for the period it
did not have access to the Depots for the purpose of its work.
K. Because the learned Arbitral Tribunal has erred in observing
“There is no such co-relation between clause of payment of
License Fee and commission of lines.” In Para 5.3.7 of the

impugned Arbitral award dated 23.10.2019. It is submitted that
commissioning of lines lead to higher footfall of riders in metro
which would eventually make advertisement on metro more
significant.
L. Because the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal further failed to appreciate
various representations sent by Petitioner to Respondent
pointing out various concerns necessary to perform the contract
and sheer ignorance by the Respondent.
45. The Petitioner carves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise any
other grounds in addition and conjunction to the above
mentioned grounds and also, amend and/ or alter and/ or
modify and/ or supplement the Petition to that extent.
46. It is submitted that as the Claim amount is more than Rs. 2
Crores, this Hon’ble Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the present application. This Hon’ble Court has
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant Petition since the

venue of the Arbitration as decided by the parties was New
Delhi.
47. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has not filed any
similar Petition/Application before this Hon’ble Court or any
other Courts of India. The present Petition is a commercial
matter under Section 2 (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of
High Courts Act, 2015.
PRAYER
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
graciously pleased to:-
(a) Allow the objection and set aside the Award dated
23.10.2019 to the extent of the following:-
(i) Allow the Petitioner’s Claim of Rs. Rs. 56,32,607/-
towards delay on account of the Respondent in
signing of the License Agreement along with interest
at 18%;
(ii) Allow the Petitioner’s Claim of Rs.61,35,518/-

towards damages for delay in commissioning of the
Faridabad Section along with interest at 18%;
(iii) Allow the Petitioner’s Claim of Rs. 4,42,47,312/-
towards Fraud/Misrepresentation by the Respondent
along with interest at 18%;
(iv) Allow the Petitioner’s Claim of Rs. 2,83,32,253/-
towards illegal termination of the contract by the
Respondent along with interest at 18%;
(v) Set aside the amount of Rs.54,84,569 awarded to the
Respondent under Counter-Claim No.1 as license fee
dues for the period during which the Respondent
denied the Petitioner all its rights under the contract
and prevented the Petitioner from performing any
work.
(vi) Allow the Petitioner’s Claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-
towards Cost of Arbitration;
(vii) Grant Interest pendente-lite on the above sums @
18%
(viii) Grant Interest on the delayed payment @ 18% from
the date of arbitral award till the date of its realisation;

(b) Pass such other order/s as it may deem fit and proper
AND FOR THIS THE PETITIONERS SHALL EVER
PRAY
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION
LTD. ...RESPONDENT
STATEMENT OF TRUTH BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT
Statement of truth by V. Krishnamurthy, S/o Virudhachala

Reddiyar, aged about 71, sole proprietary M/s Meena
Advertisers having his office at Unit No.11, 2 nd Floor, Alankar,
CHSL, Above Nadco Shopping Centre, SV Road, Andhrei- (W),
Mumbai - 400058, presently at Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:-
I, the Deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

follows:
1. That I am the Partner of Petitioner Firm and I am competent to

sign the present Petition, Affidavits and Vakalatnama on behalf
of the Petitioner.
2. I am well aware with the facts and circumstances of the present

case and have also examined all relevant records in relation
thereto.
3. I say that the statement made in paragraphs 4 to 47 are true to

my knowledge and based upon records of the Petitioner Firm
and rest of the paragraphs are based on legal advice.
4. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of any

material fact, document or record and I have included
information that is according to me relevant for the present
petition.
5. I say that all relevant documents in my power, possession,
control or custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of
the present case initiated by me have been disclosed and copies
hereof annexed with this Petition.
6. I say that the above mentioned Petition comprises of a total of

___ pages, each of which has been signed by me.
7. I say that the Annexures hereto are copies of the documents

referred to and relied upon by me.
8. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or

concealment, I shall be liable for action against me under the
law.
DEPONENT
__/01/2020
VERIFICATION
The statements made above are true to my knowledge.
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ January 2020
DEPONENT
I.A. No. ________ OF 2018
IN
O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS
LTD. ...RESPONDENT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER
SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM
FILING OF CERTIFIED/ TRUE COPY, TRANSLATED COPY
AND TYPED COPY OF DIM AND HANDWRITTEN
ANNEXURE.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The Applicant/Petitioner has filed the accompanying Petition

challenging the Arbitration Award dated 23.10.2019 passed by
the Arbitrator Tribunal.
2. That the Applicant has filed some documents/ annexures which

may be dim and may not be as prescribed by Delhi High Court
Rules. The Applicant may be exempted from filing of certified/
true copy, translated copy and typed copy of dim and
handwritten annexure. The certified/ true copy and typed copy
of the said documents/ annexure shall be filed as and when the
Applicant is directed by the Hon’ble Court.
Prayer:-
In view of the aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant exemption to the Applicant
from filling documents with proper margin/ legible/ true typed copies/
true copies/ certified copies etc as detailed in this application and in
that behalf be pleased to pass any other orders(s).
PETITIONER
THROUGH


PHONE NO. 9811312972
I.A. No. ________ OF 2018
IN
P. M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018
In the Matter of:
VERSUS
LTD. ...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, V. Krishnamurthy, S/o Virudhachala Reddiyar, aged about

71, sole proprietary M/s Meena Advertisers having his office at
Unit No.11, 2nd Floor, Alankar, CHSL, Above Nadco Shopping
Centre, SV Road, Andhrei- (W), Mumbai - 400058, presently at
Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-
1. That I am the Partner of the Petitioner and am competent to swear

the present affidavit, as such am fully conversant with the facts of
the present case.
2. That the accompanying Application has been drafted under my
instructions and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed
there from.
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified at ________ on this ____ of January 2020 that the contents

of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed there from.
DEPONENT

Meena Advertisers Section 34 Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meena Advertisers Section 34 Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meena Advertisers Section 34 Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S MEENA ADVERTISERS …PETITIONER

DELHI METRO RAIL

CORPORATION LTD. …RESPONDENT

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

6. Synopsis and List of Dates

7. Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

2. Application under Section 151 of Civil

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

S. Details of Documents Originals or Mode of Line of Page

2. Original Petitioner Copy Award Petitioner

3. copy of Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

8. Copies of Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

10. Copies of Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

11. Copies of Respondent Copy Filed by Petitioner

NEW DELHI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018

In the Matter of:

M/S KALA MINES AND MINERALS …PETITIONER

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

5. Synopsis and List of Dates

6. Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and

NEW DELHI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

D-298, Defence Colony,

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018

In the Matter of:

M/S KALA MINES AND MINERALS …PETITIONER

M/S CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Application under Section 151 of Civil

NEW DELHI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

D-298, Defence Colony,

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018

In the Matter of:

M/S KALA MINES AND MINERALS …PETITIONER

M/S CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA

INDEX - PART III

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

NEW DELHI ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

D-298, Defence Colony,

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. _____ OF 2018

In the Matter of:

M/S KALA MINES AND MINERALS …PETITIONER

M/S CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA

S. Details of Documents Originals or Mode of Line of Page

2. True Copy Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

3. True Copies Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

4. True Copy Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

5. True Copy Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

6. True Copies Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

7. True Copy Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

8. True Copy Petitioner Copy Filed by Petitioner

O.M.P. (COMM) NO. 420_ OF 2019