In a major improvement, the Patiala House Court within the nationwide capital ordered the attachment of Bikaner House, which is owned by Rajasthan Municipal Corporation. The courtroom issued an order on the idea of non-compliance with the settlement reached within the dispute between Enviro Infra Engineers Private Limited and Rajasthan’s Nokha Nagar Palika.
In its order, Judge Vidya Prakash of the Commercial Court in Delhi’s Patiala House Court mentioned, “Since you failed to fulfill the agreement passed against you on January 21, 2020 in favor of Enviro Infra Engineers Pvt Ltd for Rs 50,31,512. have failed. It is therefore ordered that the Municipality, Nokha shall not take any action related to this property until further order of this Court.”
The courtroom additionally ordered that Bikaner House seem earlier than the courtroom on November 29 for the situations and different responses to the announcement of the sale of the home.
On November 19, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered the attachment of Himachal Bhawan situated in Delhi for the restoration of Rs 150 crore owed by the state authorities to Seli Hydropower Electrical Company following an arbitration ruling in favour of the facility agency.
Passing the order on Monday, a single-judge bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel mentioned the corporate might take acceptable steps for the public sale of Himachal Bhawan in central Delhi’s Mandi House space.
Advocate General Anup Rattan mentioned the Himachal Pradesh authorities has filed an attraction towards the preliminary HC order and it’s prone to come up for listening to this month.
The case pertains to the 340 MW Seli Hydropower Electric Project on the Chenab River in Lahaul and Spiti district.
The state authorities awarded the undertaking to Seli Hydro Electric Power Company Limited/Moser Baer and issued the Letter of Allotment (LOA) on February 28, 2009, following which the agency deposited the upfront premium of Rs 64 crore.
However, the undertaking didn’t materialise. The state authorities cancelled the LOA and ordered forfeiture of the upfront premium. The firm challenged the choice earlier than an arbitrator which dominated in its favour and requested the federal government to deposit the upfront premium with curiosity.
After the state authorities didn’t adjust to the order, the corporate filed a petition earlier than the excessive courtroom underneath Article 226.
