 "SC refuses to stay Allahabad High Court order on DND flyway")
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Allahabad High Court order making the Delhi-Noida Direct Flyway (DND) toll-free, but it would pass a detailed order later. The court is going on a week-long Diwali holiday and the order is not likely to be delivered during that period.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur heard the appeal moved by the Noida Toll Bridge Company for an hour. The company, represented by senior counsel
A M Singhvi, urged the court to refer the issue of profit and loss to an independent auditor who will give his report within two months. Till then, the toll should be reimposed and the high court order be stayed, he argued. He said the balance of convenience is in favour of a stay and the company was willing to remit the weekly collection in an escrow account. However, the court did not respond to the offer.
According to Singhvi, the project for a 10-km, eight-lane road started in 1997 and completed in 2001. After 15 years of working without any complaints, the contract should not be cancelled on the ground that the earning period is over. In fact, the company’s revenue was negative for several years. Audit report for the relevant years would prove it. The high court’s decision that the cost had been recovered twice is after ignoring the expenses, interest on loans, depreciation, accountability for accidents and maintenance. He said the company has 80,000 shareholders and is listed globally.
The persons who originally moved the high court against the toll collection intervened and asserted that the company had made huge profit during the past 15 years and the high court was correct in its assessment of the revenues of the company.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur heard the appeal moved by the Noida Toll Bridge Company for an hour. The company, represented by senior counsel
A M Singhvi, urged the court to refer the issue of profit and loss to an independent auditor who will give his report within two months. Till then, the toll should be reimposed and the high court order be stayed, he argued. He said the balance of convenience is in favour of a stay and the company was willing to remit the weekly collection in an escrow account. However, the court did not respond to the offer.
According to Singhvi, the project for a 10-km, eight-lane road started in 1997 and completed in 2001. After 15 years of working without any complaints, the contract should not be cancelled on the ground that the earning period is over. In fact, the company’s revenue was negative for several years. Audit report for the relevant years would prove it. The high court’s decision that the cost had been recovered twice is after ignoring the expenses, interest on loans, depreciation, accountability for accidents and maintenance. He said the company has 80,000 shareholders and is listed globally.
The persons who originally moved the high court against the toll collection intervened and asserted that the company had made huge profit during the past 15 years and the high court was correct in its assessment of the revenues of the company.