VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2018 › High Court of Delhi

Adwel Advertising Service & Anr v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
19 July 2018
Bench
Navin Chawlaauthor
Case no.
O.M.P. (COMM) 383/2017

Judgment

NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 19, 2018/rv

Case details

Parties and counsel

O.M.P. (COMM.) 383/2017 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM.) 383/2017 & IA No. 12481-12483/2017 Reserved on: 22nd May, 2018 Date of decision : 19th July, 2018 ADWEL ADVERTISING SERVICE & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sandeep Grover, Ms.Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Mr.Yatender, Advs. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Ms.Biji Rajesh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Arbitral Award dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the offer(s) of allotment of contract for display of illuminated kiosks on street light poles on MCD roads (excluding all PWD maintained roads) for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 in respect of City Zone, South Zone, West Zone and Central Zone of the MCD, all dated 10.04.2006. 2. The primary dispute between the parties is in relation to the exclusion of all PWD maintained roads from the offer of allotment made O.M.P. (COMM.) 383/2017 Page 2 by the respondent in favour of the petitioners and the claim of the petitioners for a consequential reduction in the license fee on this ground. 3. The respondent had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 27.01.2006 in relation to allotment of rights for display of advertisement through kiosks on street poles existing on all MCD roads "including" PWD maintained roads in respect of all the 12 municipal zones from the date of allotment or 01.04.2006 (whichever is earlier) to 31.03.2008 in respect of City, Central and South Zones and for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 in respect of remaining nine Zones. The last date of submission of the tender was 16.02.2006 and the NIT prescribed the Minimum Reserve Price per month for the award of such rights. 4. There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the last date of submission of tender was extended by the respondent till 01.03.2006 vide Corrigendum dated 14.02.2006. 5. It is the case of the respondent that thereafter the NIT was amended by the respondent vide its Public Notice dated 05.03.2006 and a revised NIT was published on that date which excluded PWD maintained roads; gave a uniform period of license for all 12 municipal Zones as 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008; revised the Minimum Reserve Price per month for various Zones; as also extended the last date of submission of tenders to 10.03.2006. The petitioners dispute the issuance of this Public Notice and submit that it had submitted its tender with the respondent based on the NIT published on 27.01.2006. O.M.P. (COMM.) 383/2017 Page 3 6. The respondent vide its letter(s) dated 10.04.2006 made an offer of allotment of the contract for display of illuminated advertisement through kiosks on street poles of MCD roads (excluding all PWD maintained roads) for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 in respect of City Zone, South Zone, West Zone and Central Zone of MCD in favour of the petitioners on the monthly license fee offered by the petitioners. It is relevant to note here that such offer letter(s) clearly made reference to the Public Notice published on 05.03.2006 alongwith NIT published on 27.01.2006. The said offer letter(s) also called upon the petitioners to deposit the security deposit equivalent to three months' license fee and one month's advance license fee together with advance advertisement tax and also submit an Agreement duly executed and signed by the petitioners on or before 17.04.2006. The said letter(s) further warned that incase of failure to comply with this condition it shall be presumed that the petitioners are not interested in the offer and the same shall be withdrawn and the earnest money deposited by the petitioners shall be forfeited. 7.

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.