Case Law Details
Gannon Dunkerley And Co LTD Vs Zillion Infraprojects PVT LTD (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: The case of Gannon Dunkerley vs. Zillion Infraprojects, heard in the Delhi High Court, sheds light on a complex payment dispute between a contractor and a subcontractor within the context of a thermal power project. The case involves intricate contractual relationships, claims, counterclaims, arbitration proceedings, and subsequent legal deliberations. In this analysis, we delve into the factual background of the case, explore the legal arguments presented, examine the court’s findings, and conclude by evaluating the potential implications of the judgment.
Factual Matrix: The dispute emerged from a thermal power project in which the “Contractor,” Gannon Dunkerley & Company, was awarded a contract by the principal employer, M/s India Bulls Infrastructure Company Ltd. Part of the work was subcontracted to the “Sub-contractor,” Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The primary contention arose due to outstanding bills and various claims made by the Sub-contractor against the Contractor. The matter eventually escalated to arbitration, resulting in an award by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT).
Detailed Analysis: The case involved intricate issues such as limitation, validity of claims, the applicability of interest, and adherence to contractual obligations. The AT rejected a majority of the Sub-contractor’s claims but granted a reduced sum under claim No. 1, which pertained to outstanding bills. The court meticulously scrutinized the evidence presented by both parties, giving particular attention to quality certificates, tax invoices, and the stipulations outlined in the MOU.
The court’s examination also extended to the “back-to-back” arrangement, which the Contractor invoked as a defense. This arrangement essentially tied the Sub-contractor’s payments to the receipt of funds from the principal employer. However, the court elucidated that such a defense cannot be employed indefinitely, especially when the Contractor had not contested the accuracy of the invoices. The court emphasized that disputes cannot be used to indefinitely withhold payments, and pending certification alone cannot serve as a justification for non-payment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
