Jagtar Singh vs. Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation LTD.

Facts

The petitioner, Jagtar Singh, was awarded a license for ISBT, Sarai Kale Khan for a monthly fee of Rs. 1,02,000 plus GST and TCS. He regularly paid the license fee until March 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown starting March 25, 2020, the petitioner's business was adversely affected, making it impossible to operate and pay the license fee for April and May 2020. Consequently, the petitioner surrendered the license in May 2020. The respondent, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DTIDC), issued a notice demanding payment for April and May 2020, citing condition 22 of the NIT regarding forfeiture and termination for non-payment. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the respondent from recovering these fees and taking coercive action.

Held

The Court held that the respondent is not entitled to recover the license fee for the months of April and May 2020 from the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent nationwide lockdown, commencing from March 22, 2020, made it impossible for the petitioner to carry on their business at the allotted site. The Court found that the petitioner was not in a position to pay the license fee for these months due to these unprecedented conditions. Therefore, the demand for license fee for April and May 2020 was set aside and waived off. The Court also directed the respondent to release the security amount deposited by the petitioner. The issue regarding arbitration proceedings was not definitively resolved but did not impact the final decision on the fee waiver.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent is entitled to recover the license fee for April and May 2020 from the petitioner, considering the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the nationwide lockdown that prevented the petitioner from operating their business. This issue turns on the interpretation of the contractual terms in light of force majeure events. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown rendered it impossible to conduct business and pay the license fee. They contended that the respondent should not be entitled to recover the fee for the period when operations were impossible due to the lockdown. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through its counsel, stated that the petitioner had initiated arbitration proceedings, which was disputed by the petitioner. The respondent's primary stance was that the license fee for April and May 2020 could not be waived off, implying adherence to the contractual terms despite the pandemic.