Court upholds jurisdiction, directs engineer for project measurements, stresses third-party expertise.

The Court dismissed the RP's jurisdictional argument and directed CPWD to provide an engineer for final measurements to facilitate completion of the construction project. Emphasizing the importance of progressing the project without affecting parties' rights or dues, the Court maintained jurisdiction to issue limited directives for the RP's involvement in measurements, highlighting the necessity of third-party expertise in the process.

---

---

Issues:
Application under Section 60(5) of the Code seeking reliefs related to completion of a construction project, jurisdiction of the Bench to hear the application, reliance on a Supreme Court judgment for lack of jurisdiction, necessity of final measurements and reconciliation of work done by the corporate debtor, termination of agreement, involvement of CPWD in final measurements.

Analysis:
The case involves an application by NIT, seeking directions under Section 60(5) of the Code regarding a construction project. The applicant, a National Institute of Technology, entered into an agreement with the corporate debtor for a hostel project, which remains incomplete. Despite extensions and failed agreements, the applicant terminated the contract due to non-completion. The applicant seeks final measurements and reconciliation of work done to facilitate project completion without further delay. The RP's non-cooperation prompted the application, leading to jurisdictional disputes.

The RP argued lack of jurisdiction for the Bench to address the matter, citing a Supreme Court case. The Court's analysis of the cited case highlighted that Section 60(5) of the IBC does not extend to issues beyond the Code's purview. Drawing parallels, the Court emphasized that the corporate debtor cannot impede a third party's work, as sought by the applicant for measurement purposes, which does not affect dues or involve public law. The Bench asserted its jurisdiction over issues arising during CIRP, distinct from matters under other enactments.

The Court dismissed the RP's jurisdictional argument, noting the history of disputes between the parties, including failed arbitration due to RP's non-cooperation. Acknowledging the need for final measurements, the Court directed CPWD to provide an engineer for measurements, emphasizing proof for both parties. The order aimed to facilitate project completion without affecting parties' rights or dues, maintaining jurisdiction to issue limited directives for the RP's involvement in measurements.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the application, emphasizing the need for final measurements to progress the construction project. The decision highlighted the Bench's jurisdiction over CIRP-related matters and the necessity of facilitating project completion through measured steps involving third-party expertise.

---