India Power Corporation Limited (Formerly Known As Dpsc Ltd.) vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited

2022:DHC:1183
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of Decision: 02 March, 2022
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 & I.As. 1974-75/2022
INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS DPSC LTD.) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya and Mr.
Rajeev Chowdhary, Advocates.
versus
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Parijat Kishor,
Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. Krishanu
Barva and Mr. Saurabh Tanwar,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
th
Conciliation Act, 1996 [ hereinafter, “the Act” ] assails the award dated 15
February, 2021, in so far as the same (i) allows Respondent’s counter-claim
for rent due and (ii) rejects Petitioner’s claim for Rs. 25.81 Crores towards
st
additional expenditure till 31 December, 2014.
2. Before adverting to the contentions urged by the counsel, it must be
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 1 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
noted that challenge to the award, at the instance of the Respondent, stands
th
rejected vide order dated 29 October, 2021 in O.M.P. (COMM) 328/2021.
P ARTIES TO THE D ISPUTE
3. The Petitioner – India Power Corporation Limited (formerly DPSC
Ltd.) [ hereinafter, “IPCL” ] is a company engaged in the business of supply
and distribution of electricity. IPCL was operating two power generation
stations viz. Chinakuri and Dishergarh in West Bengal, India and supplied
electricity generated from the said power plants to coalmines for the running
and operation of mining activities, incidental to the mines.
4. The Respondent – Eastern Coalfields Limited [ hereinafter, “ECL” ] is
a coal producing company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Coal India
Limited.
B RIEF F ACTS
th
5. The Parties entered into an Agreement dated 30 March, 1987
[ hereinafter, the “Agreement” ], and in terms thereof, IPCL designed, erected
and commissioned 2x10 MW Thermal Power Plant at Chinakuri Mining
Complex [ hereinafter, “the Plant” ]. Subsequently, and in furtherance
st
thereof, parties executed a ‘Lease Deed’ dated 31 March, 1993 [ hereinafter,
“Lease Deed” ], with the intent and understanding that ECL would supply
coal to IPCL, which would be used to run and operate the plant and generate
electricity that was to be supplied to meet ECL’s power requirements.
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 2 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
6. The terms of the Lease Deed stood determined by the efflux of time
st
on 31 March, 2011. IPCL then, made request for renewal of the lease for a
further period of twenty years, however, ECL extended the same only for a
st
period of one year – up to 31 March, 2012.
7. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties and the Supreme Court
th
of India vide order dated 17 October, 2014 appointed a Sole Arbitrator for
1
adjudication of the disputes in relation to the Agreement and Lease Deed.
T RBITRATION
A A
8. At arbitration, IPCL claimed that since ECL neither paid the written
down value (“WDV”) of the additions and alterations made to the Plant by
IPCL, nor did it renew the lease for the Plant for a further period of twenty
st
years; IPCL incurred an amount of Rs. 25.81 crores till 31 December, 2014
towards additional expenditure for operating and maintaining the said Plant.
9. ECL, on the other hand, raised a counter-claim pertaining to the rent
due from IPCL. Further, ECL claimed an amount of Rs. 3,21,70,837/- as ‘rent
due’ for a period of ten months i.e., from July, 2010 to September, 2010;
April, 2011; and October, 2011 to March, 2012. ECL also claimed an amount
of Rs. 15,45,15,684/- as ‘rent due’ in lieu of ‘opportunity cost’ for a period
of forty-seven months after expiry of the Lease Deed i.e., from April, 2012
to March, 2016 on the ground that IPCL was in wrongful possession of the
st
said Plant after determination of the Lease Deed on 31 March, 2012, having
1 th
S.L.P. (C) 23007/2014 dated 17 October, 2014.
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 3 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
failed to handover the Plant, upon expiry of the lease.
10. Adjudicating the afore-noted claims, the learned Arbitrator passed an
award, the operative portion whereof, reads as under:
“(a) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs. 24.7256 Crores as
WDV.
(b) The aforesaid amount shall be paid with Interest @ 9% with effect from
06.10.2016 till payment of the amount.
(c) The Claimant shall pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 18,66,86.521/-.
(d) The aforesaid amount shall be paid with Interest @ 9% with effect from
06.10.2016 till payment of the amount.
(e) All other Claims and Counter-Claims are hereby dismissed.”
11. Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, counsel for IPCL, impugns the award in
respect of IPCL’s claim of Rs. 25.81 crores that was rejected as well as
claim awarded to the Respondent – restricting the challenge in respect thereof
to Rs. 18,45,15,684/-, as against the award of Rs. 18,66,86,521/-.
IPCL’ S C ONTENTIONS
12. Mr. Bhattacharya, counsel for IPCL, makes the following
submissions, which are crystalised as follows:
12.1. Rejection of the claim of Rs. 25.81 Crores is patently illegal,
inasmuch as that the learned Arbitrator has made factually wrong
observations and the reasoning is completely contrary to the record as
he refers to paragraph no. 147 of the impugned Award, which reads as
follows:
“147. It may be noticed at this stage that the Claimant also seeks a
direction to the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 25.81 crores on account
of expenses incurred by the Claimant in maintaining the Chinakuri
Power Station from 31.03.2012 till the possession was taken on
06.10.2016. This claim is liable to be rejected as it Is not supported by
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 4 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
any pleadings or evidence. Furthermore. No submissions were made in
support of this Claim either at the stage of the Oral Submissions or in
the Written Submissions. The Claim is hereby rejected.”
12.2. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the learned Arbitrator has failed
to take note that the claim of Rs. 25.81 crores was made in (i) the
pleadings under paragraphs no. 42 and 42(a) at pages 95 to 97 of the
amended Statement of Claim; (ii) paragraph no. 33 at page no. 1163 of
the affidavit of evidence of Mr. Somesh Das Gupta; (ii) page no. 1192
of the affidavit of evidence of Mr. Subrata De of De & Bose, Chartered
Accountants; (iv) paragraph no. 19 at page 1675 of the Claimant’s note
of submissions; and (v) paragraph no. 61 at page 23 of the impugned
Award. He submits that as per his clients’ instructions, oral submissions
had also been advanced and IPCL never gave up its claim during
arbitration proceedings. In light of the same, the observations made in
paragraph no. 147, as extracted above, is completely perverse and the
impugned Award is liable to be set-aside.
12.3. At this stage, the merits or demerits of IPCL’s claim are not
required to be examined. Rather, the Court should only examine
whether the reasoning supplied by the learned Arbitrator is sustainable
or not. Since the Tribunal’s factual findings, on all counts, are entirely
contrary to the record, the Award is liable to be set-aside and IPCL
cannot be deprived of an opportunity to sustain its case on merits. In
support, Mr. Bhattacharya places reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt.
2
Ltd. & Ors.
2
2019 SCC OnLine 8350 [ See paragraphs no. 53-57]
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 5 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
12.4 As regards award of ‘rent due’ to ECL, it is contended that
ECL’s claim of Rs. 15,45,15,684/-, as rent, after expiry of Lease Deed,
was premised on incorrect finding that IPCL was in “wrongful
possession” of the said Plant. In accordance with the terms of the
Agreement, IPCL was entitled to occupy the said Plant property till
WDV was determined. Reliance is placed upon Clause 3(a) of the Lease
Deed, which indicates that possession was to be given simultaneously
with determination of the WDV. IPCL, was required to hand over the
th
possession of the Plant on 11 May, 2015 i.e., the date on which amount
under the WDV claimed by IPCL was secured by ECL, by providing a
Bank Guarantee. The learned Arbitrator could not have awarded the
st th
purported rent, from 1 April, 2012 to 11 May, 2015.
12.5. The Lease Deed was finally determined after efflux of time on
st
31 March, 2012, after which, ECL was not entitled to claim any ‘rent
due’ for the period thereafter viz. from April , 2012 to February, 2016
(47 months) in terms of Clause 1(a) of the Lease Deed. Thus, ECL’s
claim for unauthorised and illegal occupation of the Plant had no nexus
with rent payable in terms of the Lease Deed. The learned Arbitrator has
given a factual finding in favour of IPCL – holding that ECL was unable
to establish a case of ‘opportunity loss’. Moreover, ICL did not raise
any counter-claim qua ‘opportunity loss’ for the period from April 2012
to February 2016. In light of findings rendered, the learned Arbitrator
was wrong in awarding the corresponding claim qua rent. Reliance is
placed on the judgments in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 6 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
3 4
Motors (P) Ltd. and Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property .
Assuming that IPCL continued being in unauthorised possession of the
said Plant, yet, for ECL to be entitled to any amount towards
compensation, it was imperative for them to prove alleged damages/
mesne profits, as claimed. The learned Arbitrator did not delve into this
aspect at all and straight away proceeded to award rent for this period,
contrary to settled the principles in law relating to award of mesne
profits/ damages.
12.6. ECL’s claim, on account of unauthorised and wrongful
occupation of the Plant by IPCL after the expiry of the lease, had no
nexus with rent payable in terms of the Lease Deed. The findings of the
learned Arbitrator on this aspect, as found in paragraph no. 132 of the
Award, are relied upon.
12.7. The finding of the learned Arbitrator in holding IPCL to be a
“rank trespasser” is inconsistent with the other findings rendered by
him.
S ONTENTIONS
ECL’ C
13. Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Senior Counsel for ECL, on the other hand,
defends the impugned award, and makes the following submissions:
13.1. The submissions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya with regard to
the giving up of claim for Rs. 25.81 crores, are factually incorrect. Mr.
Das emphasises that he had argued the matter before the learned
Arbitrator and no oral submissions were advanced during the course of
3
(2005) 1 SCC 705 [ See paragraphs no. 11 & 13].
4
(1998) 7 SCC 184 [ See paragraphs no. 10].
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 7 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
arguments. He states that it is unfortunate that now, a submission to the
contrary, is being made. Nonetheless, IPCL’s claim is entirely frivolous
and no submissions could have sustained the same, and it is for this
reason, that no arguments were advanced. This is apparent from the
findings rendered by the learned Arbitrator, holding IPCL to be a “rank
trespasser” on the Plant. No trespasser can be permitted to lay a claim
for maintenance of the Plant especially, when it is obligated to hand
over the same on expiry of the lease.
13.2. As regards the second contention qua award for compensation
towards ‘wrongful possession’ of the Plant, findings have been rendered
on the basis of terms of the Agreement. IPCL, in fact, has been let off
very lightly, as ECL’s claims have been allowed only on the basis of the
last paid rent. ECL has not been awarded any amount – over and above
the same basis. This award is founded on wrongful possession of the
Plant premises after termination of the lease and calls for no
interference. Besides, it must be noted that no interest has been awarded
on mesne profits/ damages – which is usually granted. Mr. Das also
clarified that for a certain period i.e., from March, 2016 to October,
2016 the learned Arbitrator has inadvertently awarded compensation,
however, in the final calculation – no amount for the said period has
been factored. On this aspect, ECL could not file an application under
Section 33 of the Act, in view of the unfortunate demise of the learned
Arbitrator, and accordingly, an application has been filed before the
Supreme Court for seeking appropriate relief.
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 8 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
F INDINGS AND A NALYSIS
14. The Court has considered the contentions of the parties. The learned
Arbitrator framed issues to decide the inter se claims of the parties, of which,
the following ones are relevant for deciding the present petition:
“(3) Whether the Claimant is a rank trespasser in the property of the
Respondent after the expiry of the lease by efflux of time i.e. w.e.f.
01.04.2012 till date? (OPR)
(4) Whether the Respondent is entitled to rent for the period July-
September, 2010 and April, 2011 to March, 2012 (10 month) as per
Clause 1(a) of lease deed 31.03.1993? (OPR)”
15. It is IPCL’s case, as recorded in paragraph no. 52 of the impugned
Award, that ECL supplied coal at the higher notified price till September,
2011, and thereafter, supply altogether stopped. IPCL was thus, constrained
to stop the generation of electricity in the Plant. During the course of
arbitration, an application being filed by IPCL under Section 17 of the Act
th
was decided by the Arbitral Tribunal vide Order dated 11 May, 2015 – by
directing ECL to furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 24.7256/- Crores,
which was to be kept in the custody of the Tribunal. A corresponding
direction was issued to IPCL to deliver possession of the Plant to ECL. Such
th
possession was notably delivered much later on 6 October, 2016.
16. The learned Arbitrator has held in paragraph no. 125 of the impugned
Award, as follows:
“125. The Lessee had no legal right to remain in possession after expiry of
the lease of efflux of time. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the
Lessee was illegally “holding over” and therefore was a rank trespasser.
In view of the statement made by the Claimant that prayer for renewal of
lease has been given up, and the possession having been delivered to the
Lessor, issues No. 1, 2 and 3 have become infructuous.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 9 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
The Arbitral Tribunal has thus, held IPCL to be a “rank trespasser” in the
Plant. Notwithstanding the afore-noted finding, IPCL claims maintenance
expenses in respect of the Plant. On this aspect, Mr. Bhattacharya has laid
much emphasis on findings of the learned Arbitrator, as recorded in
paragraph no. 147 of the impugned Award, to submit that the same are
factually incorrect. Mr. Das has categorically denied IPCL having made any
submissions in support of the claim of Rs. 25.81 crores during arbitration –
which would mean that IPCL gave up this claim. However, Mr. Bhattacharya
has taken a contradictory stand on the basis of instructions received, and thus,
it emerges that the counsel are at complete variance. Unfortunately, with the
demise of the learned Arbitrator, there are no means to confirm and/ or verify
this fact. That said, since it is one counsel’s word against the other; in the
absence of any reasonable doubt and merely on the basis of theoretical
possibility of Mr. Bhattacharya’s submissions, there is no need for an
intensive evaluation on this issue. The Court therefore, has no reason to
disbelieve the credibility of observations of the learned Arbitrator in
paragraph no. 147 regarding what transpired in the proceedings before him.
17. It must also be noted that Mr. Bhattacharya has also focused on other
observations made in paragraph no. 147 to highlight the contradictions.
Those observations relating to the pleadings and evidence should not be read
in isolation, and rather, be appreciated by reading the entire Award. The
reasoning for the same is found under paragraph no. 125 of the Award, as
extracted above. Concededly, the Plant in question had stopped operating
since November, 2011. IPCL’s claim that it incurred an expense of Rs. 25.81
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 10 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
Crores to maintain a Plant – which has been shut down since November, 2011
– is thus, inconceivable and frivolous. The learned Arbitrator has held that
IPCL had no right to remain in possession of the Plant after expiry of the
Lease Deed. IPCL ought to have vacated and handed over the possession
thereof to ECL. A “rank trespasser” cannot justify maintaining a Plant –
which it, under law, was bound to surrender, in the first place. That apart, the
alleged expenditure for maintaining a Plant, which was idle and not in
operation, cannot be justified. The Court, therefore, does not find any merit
in the contention urged by IPCL on this ground.
18. This brings us to the second aspect of the impugned Award qua
compensation towards the unauthorised occupation of the Plant by IPCL.
IPCL had to pay rent for two tranches i.e., (i) during the subsistence of the
lease (including the one-year extension period) and (ii) for unauthorised
st
occupation period from 1 April, 2012 till the actual handing over of the Plant
th
on 6 October, 2016. Mr. Bhattacharya, very fairly does not press the present
petition qua the award of compensation for the first period of ten months i.e.,
from July, 2010 to September, 2010; April, 2011; and October, 2011 to
March, 2012. In fact, with respect to the above-noted “first period”, neither
has any challenge been laid nor does the Court find any infirmity in the
findings. Mr. Bhattacharya has emphasised that there is an inherent
contradiction in the impugned Award. He has argued that on analysing the
contractual provision, the learned Arbitrator has held that IPCL was entitled
to continue to remain in possession of the premises till such time as the WDV
was to be determined by ECL. On this aspect, he had urged that IPCL is not
an unauthorised or illegal occupant and placed emphasis upon paragraphs
no. 138, 145 and 146 of the impugned Award, which read as follows:
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 11 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
“138. A perusal of the same woold show that at expiry of the lease or any
time ear1ier in case of termination of the lease, the Lessee is bound to deliver
peaceful possession of the Plant “in good running condition without claiming
any compensation value” to the Lessor. There are however, reciprocal
obligations on the Respondent to pay to the Lessor “written down value of
the additions and alterations of the building, station or additional machinery
that may be brought by the Lessee at the station.” Much need not be said on
this and tile Respondent at the stage of arguments as also of the written
submissions accepted that the written down value as indicated in this clause
has to be paid to the Claimant. The Clause further provides that “On such
determination the scheduled station shall rest in and be the absolute property
of the Lessor.” Therefore, It appears that delivery of possession could only
be given once the quantum of the WOV has been determined, which has been
accepted by both the parties. It has come in evidence that the amount of WDV
though determined by the Claimant was not accepted by the Respondent on
the ground that tile same had not been proved by documentary evidence.
[xx…xxx…xx]
145. The next submission made by the Claimant is that the possession
could only be given on determination of the WDV as provided in Clause III
(a) of the lease deed. Undoubtedly, the Clause indicates that the possession
is to be given simultaneously to the determination of the WDV. However, as
noticed earlier the Respondent was adamant that the Claim for WDV had
to be supported by the invoices relating to the installation of the Plant and
Machinery. The Committee appointed by the Respondent had calculated
quantum of WDV at Rs. 6,81,66,320,18/-. Since there was no agreement on
the quantum of WDV between the parties, the Claimant in spite of the
orders passed by the Tribunal on 11.05.2015 did not deliver possession till
06.10.2016.
146. I am of the opinion that the Claimant was not justified in withholding
the payment of rent. As noticed earlier the WDV as claimed was secured by
the Respondent by providing the Bank Guarantee in the amount of Rs.24.
7256 Crores. Therefore, even if it is accepted that the possession was to be
given on determination of the WDV, the Claimant was required to handover
the possession of the Plant in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on
11.05.2015. At the same time, it appears that the Respondent was not justified
in seeking further proof of the amount claimed as WDV by the Claimant, as
the Claim was supported by the report of Chartered Accountants. It is held
that the Claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.24.7256 Crores as WDV.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 12 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
19. The aforesaid findings relied upon by IPCL have to be read along with
other findings rendered by the learned Arbitrator in paragraphs no. 129 and
130 and 151 of the impugned Award, which read as follows:
“129. I have considered the submissions made by the both the parties.
Clause 1 (a) clearly fixes the “rent” to be paid on a monthly basis. The term
of the agreement being clear and unambiguous cannot be replaced by the
term “operating and maintenance”. This would result on adding words to the
Clause, which is not permitted by law, unless the Clause was not clear. Even
otherwise there is no merit in this submission that the Claimant was working
in dual capacity or that it was an operation and maintenance manager for the
Respondent in running the Chinakuri Power Plant. This is evident from the
provisions contained on the agreement entered into between the parties on
30.031987. The opening recital shows that ECL was desirous of setting up a
Thermal Power Station for 2 x 10 MW capacity for its mining complex at
Chinakuri at an estimated cost of Rs.50 crores approximately. The Claimant
had appointed DPS for supervision and management of project for
construction, erection and successful commissioning of the Thermal Power
Station. The lease deed dated 31.03.1993 has been executed pursuant to
Article 9.1 of the agreement. Article 2.1 of the aforesaid agreement states that
the Claimant is to act on behalf of the Respondent for the above purpose
“upto the date of successful conclusion of trial run operation”. Article 9.1
records that DPS has agreed to enter into the 1987 agreement for supervision
and management of the project only on the condition that the station will be
“let out to DPS for a period of 20 years under a lease agreement at a monthly
lease rent of Rs.29, 17,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs seventeen thousand
only) .......” (Italics supplied). From the above it is obvious that 1987
agreement was limited in its operation upto the completion of construction
and commissioning of the power station. Therefore, tile above submission
made on behalf of the Claimant is without any merit and hence rejected. Even
though the submission has been rejected, it is noted here that the above
submission was not made during the oral hearing. It has been made for the
first time in the written submissions.
130. The other defence raised by the Claimant is that the Plant was lying
idle as the Claimant had been “choked” by the non-supply of Coal, as a result
of which the Plant could not be operated. This submission has to be rejected
keeping in view the provision contained in Clause I(a), which clearly states
that the aforesaid amount of rent is to be paid “ .... irrespective whether the
Station is in operation or not or is under repair or maintenance or
replacements for any period whatsoever.” This apart there is no stipulation
in the lease deed that the Respondent shall supply coal to the Claimant. None
the less coal was being supplied lo the Claimant and other power stations in
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 13 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
accordance with Government policies. Therefore, it is held that the Claimant
is liable to pay the rent as follows;
For the period July-September, 2010; April, 2011 and October 2011 to
March, 2012 (10 months). The total amount claimed is Rs.3,21,70,837/-.
[xx…xxx…xx]
151. In view of the relief granted under Issue No. 4, no further relief can
be granted to the Respondent as compensation for the Claimant being in
unauthorised occupation of the Plant till 06.10.2016. With effect from April,
2012, the Respondent was entitled to receive “mesne profits” from the
Claimant till possession was delivered Under issue no.4, I have concluded
that the Respondent is entitled to the amount equivalent to the rent that would
have been payable by the Claimant, had it been In lawful possession of the
Plant. This finding was given, after taking into consideration the tug of war
between the parties with regard to payment of the WDV. It was being claimed
by the Respondent that it was entitled to possession as the lease has expired
by efflux of time on 31.03.2012, after one year extension. On the other hand,
Claimant was insisting that WDV had to be paid simultaneously, if not prior,
to the delivery of possession. There was dispute also with regard to the
quantum of WDV to be paid. The Respondent had calculated the quantum of
WDV on the basis of the Report submitted by its four member Committee. On
the other hand, the Claimant had also quantified the WDV. The gap
between the two was so huge, as to make it very difficult for the two parties
to accept either or the amounts. Whatever be the reasons, the Claimant was
in unauthorised possession of the Plant with effect from 31.03.2012. Thus
the direction in Issue no.4 to pay compensation equal to the amount of rent.
No further relief can be granted under this issue.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
20. The award of compensation to ECL is for the period IPCL continued
to be in illegal occupation of the Plant premises. The learned Arbitrator has
given a categorical finding that IPCL was in illegal occupation of the
premises. If IPCL had no legal right to remain in possession and it failed to
surrender the same, inevitability it becomes liable to pay compensation, as it
was a tenant in holding over. Now, assuming that IPCL did not lead any
evidence to prove damages, the question that arises is whether the learned
Arbitrator could have awarded damages – which are not more than the
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 14 of 15

2022:DHC:1183
contractual rate agreed between the parties. There are various precedents of
this Court, as well as the Supreme Court, which take judicial notice of
increase of rent – by applying the provisions of Sections 114 and 57 of the
5
Evidence Act, 1872. IPCL has not shown any material to demonstrate that
the actual market rate of rent of the premises had fallen down considerably
during the period of illegal occupation of the Plant premises. In absence of
such material, the learned Arbitrator cannot be faulted for awarding
compensation on the basis of the last paid rent – which under ordinary
circumstances, increases at 15% per annum , that too without interest. Thus,
even if IPCL failed to lead any evidence to prove the mesne profits, the
Award, on the basis of contractual stipulation – calls for no interference. The
observations of the learned Arbitrator in denying the ‘opportunity lost’ to
ECL, does not in any manner contradict the Award on the basis of last paid
rent. The learned Arbitrator has given a specific conclusion that IPCL was
not justified in withholding rent and this being a finding of fact, on the basis
of coherent reasoning of the learned Arbitrator as found in the Award, the
Court does not see any ground to interfere on this count as well.
21. In light of the above, the Court does not find any merit in the present
petition. Dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 2, 2022
akansha
nd
(corrected and released on 02 April, 2022)
5
M.C. Agrawal HUF v. Sahara India 183 (2011) DLT 105 [ See paragraph no. 8]
O.M.P. (COMM) 83/2022 Page 15 of 15