{"id":111072,"date":"2009-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-05T09:54:09","modified_gmt":"2016-11-05T04:24:09","slug":"ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Manmohan Singh<\/div>\n
*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n\n+          I.A. No. 6465\/2009 in CS (OS) No. 885\/2007\n\n                                 Reserved on: November 12, 2009\n%                                Decided on: December 3, 2009\n\n\nM\/s. Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd.               ...Plaintiff\n                     Through : Mr.Neeraj Malhotra, Adv.\n\n                                  Versus\n\nM\/s. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors.                      ...Defendants\n                     Through : Mr. E.R. Kumar with Mr. D.P.\n                                Mohanty, Mr. Shashank and\n                                Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advs.\n\nCoram:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                       No\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                        Yes\n\nMANMOHAN SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.         By this order, I shall dispose of I.A. No. 6465\/2009 filed by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.<\/p>\n
2.         Brief facts of the present case are as follows.<\/p>\n
(a) The plaintiff is a joint venture of the Government of India and the<\/p>\n
Government of Himachal Pradesh, set up to execute a hydro-electric<\/p>\n
project with a capacity of 1500 MW.\n<\/p>\n
(b) The defendants are a joint venture of two companies, one in Italy and<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                           Page 1 of 13<\/span>
\n one in Mumbai. Various works were to be carried out and the defendants<\/p>\n
submitted their tender bids along with other contenders and were<\/p>\n
awarded the execution of work under Contract # 2.2, i.e. for construction<\/p>\n
of civil works for Head Race Tunnel from Stn. 16042 m to Stn. 27295 m<\/p>\n
and surge shaft for the same by letter dated 26th May, 1993 in<\/p>\n
accordance with which a contract was signed by the parties on 24th June,<\/p>\n
1993.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Clause 70 of the General Conditions of the Contract provided a price<\/p>\n
adjustment mechanism which allowed for any increase\/decrease of costs<\/p>\n
corresponding to any change in the indexed costs of labour, materials,<\/p>\n
fuel etc. Clause 70 (v) provides for recovery of additional costs borne<\/p>\n
due to subsequent change in any legislation.\n<\/p>\n
(d) Modified clause 67 provided for resolution of the disputes between<\/p>\n
the parties by reference to arbitration. In case the claims of parties were<\/p>\n
within Rs. 50 million, the decision of the DRB would be final. If the<\/p>\n
claims of parties were beyond Rs. 50 million, the DRB\u201fs decision would<\/p>\n
be only recommendatory and either party could resort to arbitration.<\/p>\n
(e) As a result of the increase in the road tax on cement, explosives and<\/p>\n
steel, the defendants paid Rs. 29,28,731.94\/- and then claimed<\/p>\n
reimbursement of the same from the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
(f) The said bill for reimbursement was rejected by Engineer in Charge<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff. The claims of the defendants were admittedly within the<\/p>\n
ceiling of Rs. 50 million.\n<\/p>\n
(g) The matter was referred to the Dispute Resolution Board (hereinafter<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                             Page 2 of 13<\/span>
\n referred to as \u201eDRB\u201f) which passed an order dated 7th July, 1995 in<\/p>\n
favour of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
(h)A review application against the same was filed but was rejected vide<\/p>\n
order dated 12th February, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
(i) No appeal\/objection against the said order was filed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
except Suit No. 17\/2002 at the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at<\/p>\n
Shimla (referred to as \u201eShimla High Court\u201f for brevity)<\/p>\n
3.         The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and<\/p>\n
2 and obtained an ad-interim ex-parte order in its favour in the Shimla<\/p>\n
High Court.\n<\/p>\n
4.         The plaintiff also filed an application under Section 9 of the<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying, inter-alia, that the<\/p>\n
defendants be directed to refund the plaintiff with interest @ 24 % per<\/p>\n
annum and that the operation of the DRB\u201fs orders dated 7 th July, 1995<\/p>\n
and 12th February, 1997 be stayed.\n<\/p>\n
5.         The defendants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of<\/p>\n
the CPC for vacation of the ex-parte grant of injunction.<\/p>\n
6.         By order dated 3rd May, 2005 a Single Judge of the Shimla<\/p>\n
High Court returned the plaint in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation of the<\/p>\n
plaint before a court of competent jurisdiction in view of the finding<\/p>\n
dated 13th April, 2005 in another case being Arbitration Case No.<\/p>\n
58\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
7.         The plaintiff preferred an appeal being OSA No. 4\/2005<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                           Page 3 of 13<\/span>
\n which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Shimla High Court<\/p>\n
by order dated 10th September, 2008, inter alia, with the following<\/p>\n
finding :\n<\/p>\n
             “The law is well settled that when two or more competent
\n             courts have jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the parties
\n             by mutual consent can agree to fix jurisdiction in only one
\n             of them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In the present case, as noted above, at three places in the
\n             contract, namely, Clause XII, modified clause 67 as well as
\n             clause 5 the parties have clearly indicated that the
\n             arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi and have
\n             also clearly agreed that the Courts at Delhi would have
\n             jurisdiction to decide their disputes. The parties were aware
\n             that the other courts which could have jurisdiction were the
\n             courts in Shimla & Kinnaur Districts. When they
\n             specifically limited the jurisdiction to the Delhi courts, a
\n             presumption can reasonably be raised that their intention
\n             was to oust the jurisdiction of the courts at Shimla &
\n             Kinnaur Districts. The parties by such an agreement have
\n             not conferred jurisdiction upon a Court not having
\n             jurisdiction but have elected that the disputes between them
\n             should be decided by the Courts at Delhi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The complete record of the said suit was received by the plaintiff on 8th<\/p>\n
December, 2008 from the court for the purpose of presentation of plaint<\/p>\n
in the appropriate court. Thereafter the present suit was filed on 27th<\/p>\n
February, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
8.          The   present application has been filed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
seeking exclusion of time spent in pursuing a prior proceeding as<\/p>\n
regards     the same    matter before the Shimla High Court. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff has submitted that as the contract in question was executed<\/p>\n
in the state of Himachal Pradesh and the General Conditions of the<\/p>\n
Contract did not confer sole and exclusive jurisdiction on the courts<\/p>\n
of Delhi, the plaintiff instituted a suit on 10th April, 2002 against the<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                            Page 4 of 13<\/span>
\n recommendation of the DRB dated 10th May, 1995 passed almost five<\/p>\n
years earlier, in the Shimla High Court being CS (OS) No. 17\/2002<\/p>\n
praying that the DRB\u201fs orders be declared null and void; that the DRB<\/p>\n
be restrained from passing any binding orders based on Clause 67 of the<\/p>\n
contract and that the DRB\u201fs interpretation of the said clause be declared<\/p>\n
bad.\n<\/p>\n
9.          It is the plaintiff\u201fs submission that the civil proceedings in the<\/p>\n
Shimla High Court were being pursued by the plaintiff with due<\/p>\n
diligence and in good faith.\n<\/p>\n
10.         It is argued by the plaintiff that the prior proceedings were<\/p>\n
terminated due to defect of jurisdiction and hence, as per Section 14 of<\/p>\n
the Limitation Act, the period spent by the plaintiff in pursuing the<\/p>\n
matter against the defendant in good faith in another High Court should<\/p>\n
be excluded while counting the period of limitation for filing the present<\/p>\n
suit and should be condoned.\n<\/p>\n
11.         As per the plaintiff, the period from filing of the suit to<\/p>\n
handing over the records by the Shimla High Court to the plaintiff i.e.<\/p>\n
from 10th April, 2002 to 8th December, 2008, which is a period of 6<\/p>\n
years, 7 months and 28 days should be excluded.\n<\/p>\n
12.         In their reply to the plaintiff\u201fs application for condonation of<\/p>\n
delay, defendants no. 1 to 3 have contended that the dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties was decided by the DRB on merits and after due consideration.<\/p>\n
The review filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and for five years<\/p>\n
thereafter, the plaintiff did nothing.\n<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                                Page 5 of 13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 13.        Further, the defendants have contended that in CS (OS) No.<\/p>\n
56\/2004 filed by the plaintiff against the present defendant no. 1, the<\/p>\n
Shimla High Court held on 7th June, 2006 that the decision of the DRB<\/p>\n
for individual claims not exceeding Rs. 50 million is nothing but an<\/p>\n
arbitral award which cannot be challenged\/ set aside by filing of a suit.<\/p>\n
14.        In this regard, counsel for the defendants has referred to<\/p>\n
Punjab State v. Dina Nath,<\/a> (2007) 5 SCC 28 wherein it was observed<\/p>\n
that if the intention of the parties is to refer the dispute to an arbitrator,<\/p>\n
then there is an arbitration agreement. Merely because the word<\/p>\n
\u201earbitration\u201f is not included in the clause would not preclude the relevant<\/p>\n
agreement from being an arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n
15.        It is argued by the defendant that the plaintiff\u201fs contention<\/p>\n
that the contract did not vest sole and exclusive jurisdiction on the Delhi<\/p>\n
courts is false as the language of the jurisdiction clause is absolutely<\/p>\n
clear in vesting jurisdiction on Delhi courts.\n<\/p>\n
16.        The plaintiff was pursuing the matter in the Shimla High<\/p>\n
Court without due diligence as the jurisdiction clause clearly vests<\/p>\n
jurisdiction with the courts at Delhi and the plaintiff was aware of the<\/p>\n
same, the plaintiff\u201fs prayer ought not to be condoned. Further, the<\/p>\n
application under Section 14 has been verified on 17 th April, 2009 and<\/p>\n
there is no application for condonation from the period from 19th<\/p>\n
December, 2008 till the date of filing of the present plaint on 27th<\/p>\n
February, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                                Page 6 of 13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 17.        The defendants have also contended that the order dated 7th<\/p>\n
July, 1995 and 12th February, 1997 passed by the DRB were in the<\/p>\n
nature of arbitral awards and were not challenged, nor was any<\/p>\n
application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. On the<\/p>\n
other hand, the said orders were acted upon and the amount due was paid<\/p>\n
to defendant no. 1. The present suit is therefore barred under Section 32<\/p>\n
of the Arbitration Act, 1940.\n<\/p>\n
18.        The provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is<\/p>\n
reproduced hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
            “14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court
\n            without jurisdiction<\/p>\n
            (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the
\n                time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting
\n                with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in
\n                a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against
\n                the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding
\n                relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in
\n                good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction
\n                or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2) In computing the period of limitation for any
\n                application, the time during which the applicant has
\n                been prosecuting with due diligence another civil
\n                proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of
\n                appeal or revision, against the same party for the same
\n                relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is
\n                prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of
\n                jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to
\n                entertain it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 2 of Order
\n                XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
\n                the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation
\n                to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the
\n                court under Rule 1 of that Order, where such permission
\n                is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by
\n                reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other
\n                cause of a like nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                              Page 7 of 13<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Explanation : For the purposes of this section,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (a) in excluding the time during which a former civil
\n                       proceeding was pending, the day on which that
\n                       proceeding was instituted and the day on which it
\n                       ended shall both be counted;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall
\n                       be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be
\n                       deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect
\n                       of jurisdiction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19.        As per well settled law, the five conditions to be satisfied for<\/p>\n
application of Section 14 are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
            (i) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil
\n            proceedings prosecuted by the same party;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due
\n            diligence and in good faith;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iii) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of
\n            jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iv) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must
\n            relate to the same matter in issue and;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (v) Both the proceedings are in a court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.        The question posed before this court, after perusal of the facts<\/p>\n
is simply whether the plaintiff can take benefit of Section 14 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act and get the period of 6 years, 7 months and 28 days spent<\/p>\n
pursuing civil suit no. 17\/2002 in the Shimla High Court excluded.<\/p>\n
21.        From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the admitted<\/p>\n
facts are that on 19th May, 1995 the claims of the defendants were<\/p>\n
accepted by the DRB and a recommendation was made accordingly. The<\/p>\n
application against the recommendation was rejected vide order dated 7th<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                              Page 8 of 13<\/span>
\n July, 1995 and the appeal against this order was rejected vide order dated<\/p>\n
12th February, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
22.          The plaintiff filed a civil suit being no. 17\/2002 in the Shimla<\/p>\n
High Court on 10th April, 2002, i.e. after 5 years and 58 days after the<\/p>\n
cause of action arose.\n<\/p>\n
23.          On 3rd May, 2005 a learned Single Judge of the Shimla High<\/p>\n
Court returned the plaint, the appeal against which was rejected vide a<\/p>\n
division bench order dated 10th September, 2008.<\/p>\n
24.          The present suit was filed on 27th February, 2009 and the<\/p>\n
application under consideration was verified on 17th April, 2009.<\/p>\n
25.          An intriguing fact is that the suit filed at the Shimla High<\/p>\n
Court appears to be time barred as it was filed 5 years and 58 days after<\/p>\n
the cause of action arose, therefore, there is no question of taking benefit<\/p>\n
of the time spent in pursuing a litigation which was time barred to begin<\/p>\n
with. In this respect, counsel for the defendants has referred to Amar<\/p>\n
Chand Inani v. Union of India,<\/a> (1973) 1 SCC 115, wherein it was held<\/p>\n
as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “9. …Section 14 of the Act only provided for the exclusion
\n              of the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting
\n              with due diligence another civil proceeding against the
\n              defendant, where the proceeding is founded upon the same
\n              cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court
\n              which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like
\n              nature, is unable to entertain it. Even if the plaintiff was
\n              entitled to get an exclusion of the time during which he was
\n              prosecuting the suit in the Karnal and Panipat Courts, the
\n              suit would not be within time as the filing of the suit in the
\n              Karnal Court was beyond the period of Limitation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
26.          The present suit has not been filed in compliance with the<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                               Page 9 of 13<\/span>
\n procedure prescribed in Order VII Rules 10 (2) and 10A (2) of the CPC.<\/p>\n
A bare examination of the plaint in civil suit no. 17\/2002 filed in the<\/p>\n
Shimla High Court which shows that, (a) in the earlier suit filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in the Shimla High Court, the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction<\/p>\n
was valued at Rs. 10,05,000\/- whereas the present suit has been valued at<\/p>\n
Rs. 1,45,15,481\/- for the purposes of declaration and at Rs. 500\/- for the<\/p>\n
purposes of perpetual injunction; (b) counsel for the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
admitted that substantial changes have been made in the plaint which has<\/p>\n
been filed in this court and that the said changes are not minor but exist<\/p>\n
from para 1 to the prayer clause. New facts, admittedly, have been<\/p>\n
added, the prayer has been changed and so has the pecuniary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. Under the compliance of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, after the<\/p>\n
return of the plaint it should have been filed before the District Court as<\/p>\n
the plaint was valued in the suit at Rs. 10,05,000\/-.<\/p>\n
27.        Thus, even as per the admitted position by the plaintiff, i.e.<\/p>\n
changing the contents, prayer, allegations and valuation of the suit and<\/p>\n
then filing the same before this court amounts to filing a new suit which<\/p>\n
is without any doubt time barred, therefore, in these circumstances, no<\/p>\n
benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be given to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff as for the purposes of Section 14, one of the requirements is that<\/p>\n
the earlier and latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in hand.<\/p>\n
Introducing differences as the plaintiff has, it cannot seek to state or<\/p>\n
imply that civil suit no. 17\/2002 and the present suit are the same.<\/p>\n
28.        Further, Clause XII of the contract between the parties i.e. the<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                             Page 10 of 13<\/span>
\n jurisdiction conferring clause is reproduced hereinbelow :<\/p>\n
             “In the event that any party deems it necessary to initiate
\n             legal action or proceedings to enforce any rights or
\n             obligations under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree
\n             that any such action shall be initiated as per law for the time
\n             being in force in India and within the jurisdiction of the
\n             Courts at New Delhi. The Board Members, hereby, consent
\n             to be bound by the personal jurisdiction of the Courts at
\n             New Delhi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
29.        The above-mentioned clause has been referred to by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff itself. In view of the explicit language of the said Clause, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\u201fs argument that the courts at Delhi did not have \u201eexclusive\u201f and<\/p>\n
\u201esole\u201f jurisdiction by virtue of the contract between the parties is, by no<\/p>\n
stretch of imagination, a valid contention.\n<\/p>\n
30.        In light of this observation, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy<\/p>\n
yet another requirement of Section 14, perhaps the most important<\/p>\n
requirement, that the prior proceeding was not prosecuted with due<\/p>\n
diligence and in good faith.\n<\/p>\n
31.        Further, the appeal order passed by the Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
Shimla High Court clearly states that not only Clause XII of the contract<\/p>\n
but also modified clause 67 as well as clause 5 clearly indicate that<\/p>\n
arbitration proceedings shall be held at Delhi and also that Courts at<\/p>\n
Delhi would have jurisdiction to decide the disputes.<\/p>\n
32.        In this regard, counsel for the defendants has referred to<\/p>\n
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Mr. K.S. Baidwan & Ors., FAFO No.<\/p>\n
438\/2008 passed on 31st March, 2009 by a learned Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
Allahabad High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in order dated<\/p>\n
22nd July, 2009. The Hon\u201fble Division Bench in that case referred to<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                             Page 11 of 13<\/span>
\n various cases and discussed the meaning of \u201egood faith\u201f within the<\/p>\n
purview of Section 14. For convenience, these are stated numerically<\/p>\n
below :\n<\/p>\n
           I. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal<\/p>\n
           Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC<\/p>\n
           169 it was held that due diligence cannot be measured by<\/p>\n
           any absolute standards and that it is the measure of<\/p>\n
           prudence or activity expected from an ordinary, reasonable<\/p>\n
           and prudent person. To take benefit of Section 14, there<\/p>\n
           must be an honest doubt as regards the competent court etc.<\/p>\n
           If an order has been passed and execution is stalled because<\/p>\n
           a party has been pursuing the appeal in the wrong forum for<\/p>\n
           some time, the intention of the party may be questioned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           II. In Rabindra Nath v. Sivakami, AIR 1972 SC 730 it<\/p>\n
           was stated that if a party insists on pursuing suit in the<\/p>\n
           wrong forum even after being made aware that the same is a<\/p>\n
           non-competent forum as regards the relevant issue, the said<\/p>\n
           party cannot take advantage of Section 14.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           III. In Ghasi Ram & Ors. v. Chait Ram Sainti & Ors.,<\/p>\n
           AIR 1998 SC 2476 it was observed that the appellant was<\/p>\n
           an illiterate person who made an honest mistake while<\/p>\n
           acting on his counsel\u201fs advice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
33.       In the present case, (i) civil suit no. 17\/2002 filed at the<\/p>\n
Shimla High Court was barred by limitation itself, having been filed<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                        Page 12 of 13<\/span>
\n more than 5 years after the dispute; (ii) there are three clauses in the<\/p>\n
contract stating that the courts at Delhi are to have jurisdiction in case of<\/p>\n
any dispute, and even if the plaintiff was unaware of these, it cannot<\/p>\n
feign ignorance after the same was pointed out in the orders of the<\/p>\n
Shimla High Court; and (iii) the plaint submitted now and the plaint<\/p>\n
submitted in the prior proceeding differ greatly and cannot be said to be<\/p>\n
as regards the same matter.\n<\/p>\n
34.           With these observations, no benefit under Section 14 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act can be provided to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to any, therefore, the present application is dismissed and<\/p>\n
consequently, the plaintiff\u201fs suit is also dismissed as being barred by<\/p>\n
limitation.\n<\/p>\n
              All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                                MANMOHAN SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
DECEMBER 3, 2009
\nnn<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 885\/2007                                              Page 13 of 13<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 Author: Manmohan Singh * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + I.A. No. 6465\/2009 in CS (OS) No. 885\/2007 Reserved on: November 12, 2009 % Decided on: December 3, 2009 M\/s. Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power ... vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power ... vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-05T04:24:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\\\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T04:24:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3247,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power ... vs M\\\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T04:24:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\\\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power ... vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power ... vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-05T04:24:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T04:24:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009"},"wordCount":3247,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009","name":"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power ... vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T04:24:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nathpa-jhakri-power-vs-ms-nathpa-jhakri-venture-ors-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Power … vs M\/S. Nathpa Jhakri Venture & Ors. on 3 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111072","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111072\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}