C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. The unsuccessful petitioner in A.O.P.No.669 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. We need to state a few relevant facts culminating in filing of this appeal. The appellant, a joint venture company, has successfully bagged the contract work described as Extension of West qua Return end in replacement of existing RCC Lay by Jetty for coastal cargo and berthing of Harbour Crafts and construction of Return end for shore protection at the proposed WQ-8 end in the Northern arm of Inner Harbour of Visakhapatnam Port. For convenience, the said work is hereinafter referred to as the contract work. The respondent has issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 18-9-2010. On 22-9-2010 it has issued the work order as per which the contract period is stipulated as 18 months. A formal contract was executed between the parties on 27-11-2010. As per the contract, the appellant has furnished four Bank Guarantees, the details of which are as under :

1. Bank Guarantee dated 3-6-2010 for a sum of Rs.62,50,200/- towards EMD for due fulfillment of the terms and conditions contained in the Tender.

2. Bank Guarantee, dated 8-10-2010 for a sum of Rs.1,83,76,045/-, representing 5% of the contract value, for satisfactory performance of the work.

3. Bank Guarantee dated 23-11-2010 for a sum of Rs.2,36,00,000/-, towards mobilization advance for bringing the plant and machinery to the site of work.

4. Bank Guarantee for Security Deposit in lieu of cash deposit, dated 2-12-2011, for Rs.1,83,76,048/-, representing 5% of the contract value, for satisfactory performance of the work.

3. As per the contract, the work was to commence on 28-10-2010 and completed by 5-4-2012. When the work was not completed, the respondent has issued show cause notice dated 9-7-2013 indicating its intention to unilaterally rescind the contract due to slow progress of work and to entrust the execution of the balance works to a third party at the cost and risk of the appellant. On 19-7-2013, the respondent has issued a e-notice inviting Tenders. The appellant filed the above mentioned Arbitration O.P. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), for an injunction against re-tendering of the balance works and invocation and encashment of the Bank Guarantees by the respondent. On 24-7-2013, ad interim injunction against invoking and encashment of Bank Guarantees was granted by the lower Court. The respondent entered appearance and contested the O.P. which was eventually dismissed by order dated 9-8-2016. The appellant filed W.P.No.28733 of 2016, with the grievance that the lower Court has not furnished certified copy of the order and that meanwhile the respondent was trying to encash the Bank Guarantees. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 26-8-2016 with the direction to the lower Court to furnish a certified copy of the order in the O.P. A direction was also issued in the said order directing the lower Court to dispose of I.A.No.656 of 2016 filed for interim protection by 29-8-2016. It was further directed that the respondent shall not invoke and encash the Bank Guarantees till disposal of the said I.A. After a certified copy of the order in the A.O.P. was furnished, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. Ms. K. Mamata, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that due to the failure of the respondent to fulfill its contractual obligations, the appellant was unable to complete the work within the stipulated time and also the extended time and that therefore having committed defaults on various grounds in complying with its contractual obligations, the respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own defaults and encash the Bank Guarantees furnished by the appellant. She has further submitted that special equities by way of irretrievable injustice being one of th