Patiala House Court Orders Attachment of Bikaner House Over Rs 50 Lakh Dispute

New Delhi: In a significant development, the Patiala House Court in the national capital ordered the attachment of Bikaner House, which is owned by Rajasthan Municipal Corporation. The court issued an order on the basis of non-compliance with the agreement reached in the dispute between Enviro Infra Engineers Private Limited and Rajasthan's Nokha Nagar Palika.

Court Directs Attachment of Bikaner House Over Non-Compliance in Enviro Infra Case

In its order, Judge Vidya Prakash of the Commercial Court in Delhi's Patiala House Court said, "Since you failed to fulfill the agreement passed against you on January 21, 2020 in favor of Enviro Infra Engineers Pvt Ltd for Rs 50,31,512. have failed. It is therefore ordered that the Municipality, Nokha shall not take any action related to this property until further order of this Court." 

The court also ordered that Bikaner House appear before the court on November 29 for the conditions and other responses to the announcement of the sale of the house.

Himachal Bhawan Faces Auction After HC Ruling on Rs 150 Crore Hydropower Dispute

On November 19, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered the attachment of Himachal Bhawan located in Delhi for the recovery of Rs 150 crore owed by the state government to Seli Hydropower Electrical Company following an arbitration ruling in favour of the power firm.

Passing the order on Monday, a single-judge bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel said the company may take appropriate steps for the auction of Himachal Bhawan in central Delhi's Mandi House area.

Advocate General Anup Rattan said the Himachal Pradesh government has filed an appeal against the initial HC order and it is likely to come up for hearing this 

month.
The case pertains to the 340 MW Seli Hydropower Electric Project on the Chenab River in Lahaul and Spiti district.

The state government awarded the project to Seli Hydro Electric Power Company Limited/Moser Baer and issued the Letter of Allotment (LOA) on February 28, 2009, following which the firm deposited the upfront premium of Rs 64 crore.

However, the project did not materialise. The state government cancelled the LOA and ordered forfeiture of the upfront premium. The company challenged the decision before an arbitrator which ruled in its favour and asked the government to deposit the upfront premium with interest.
After the state government did not comply with the order, the company filed a petition before the high court under Article 226.