High Court of Judicature at Bombay
S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
M/s. Arad Metering Technologies Ltd.
Versus
Axelia Utility Management Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Notice of Motion (L) No. 540 of 2014 in Suit (L) No. 236 of 2014
Decided on: 18-03-2014
Bank Guarantee - Contract Dispute - 18, 10, 11 - The court discussed the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order, the warranty period, and the Bank Guarantee. The Plaintiff alleged that the invocation of the Bank Guarantee by Defendant No.1 was fraudulent and illegal, while Defendant No.1 argued that the Bank Guarantee was unconditional and had been invoked as per its terms. The court found that the Bank Guarantee was unconditional and that the Plaintiff failed to establish fraud or irretrievable injury to restrain Defendant No.1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought a restraint order against Defendant No.1 from invoking a Bank Guarantee dated 13th November, 2013, alleging that the warranty period had expired and the Bank Guarantee had come to an end. Defendant No.1 invoked the Bank Guarantee, leading to the present dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Bank Guarantee was unconditional and had been invoked as per its terms. The Plaintiff failed to establish fraud or irretrievable injury to restrain Defendant No.1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to restrain Defendant No.1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee, alleging that the warranty period had expired and the Bank Guarantee had come to an end.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bank Guarantee was unconditional and that the Plaintiff failed to establish fraud or irretrievable injury to restrain Defendant No.1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee.
Final Decision: The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs. The ad interim order passed by the Court was continued until 24th March, 2014, based on the Plaintiff's undertaking to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amounts payable under the Bank Guarantee to Defendant No.1 from 11th March, 2014, until payment.
1. The Plaintiff in the present Suit is inter alia seeking a restraint order against Defendant No.1 from in any manner receiving, accepting and/or seeking payments under a Bank Guarantee dated 13th November, 2013 (Exhibit-AA to the Plaint) and bearing No./0500FPEBG130019 (the “said Bank Guarantee”). The Plaintiff has also taken out the present Notice of Motion seeking ad-interim and interim injunctions against Defendant No.1 from receiving and against Defendant No.2 from making any payments to Defendant No.1 under the said Bank Guarantee.
2. Defendant No.1 invoked the Bank Guarantee on 8th March, 2014. After filing the Suit on 11th March, 2014, for the aforesaid reliefs, the Plaintiff moved an ex parte application before this Court for urgent ad-interim reliefs. On that application, this Court: (a) directed Defendant No.2-the Bank to maintain status quo as of that date; and (b) in the event that it had transferred any funds to Defendant No.1, direct the latter not to withdraw /utilize the same until 12th March, 2014. On 13th March, 2014, by consent of the parties, the Notice of Motion was heard finally and the ad-interim order was extended upto 18th March, 2014.
3. Defendant No.1 along with two others was engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) to execute an infrastructure project and allied activities in Mumbai. Pursuant to its engagement, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 entered into an Agreement styled as “Purchase Order” dated 18th May, 2010 (Exhibit-B to the Plaint), for “supply of AMR Water Meters for various sizes as per specifications given by the MCGM for the Western Suburbs area of Mumbai”.
4. The material clauses of the said Purchase Order are set out hereunder:
“This is with reference to above mentioned subject. We are pleased to place our formal Purchase Order for supply of the items listed below on the following terms and conditions:
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE
US$ TOTAL PRICE US$
CIF JNPT, MUMBAI CIF JNPT, MUMBAI
1. Supply of AMR water
meters of following sizes
as per specifications
approved by the MCGM
along with relevant
software & technology
support
1 15mm 20825 72.60 1511895.00
2 20mm 23800 87.05 2071790.00
3 25mm 12460 142.00 1769320.00
4 40mm 5846 205.30 1200183.80
B) Drive – By + iPAQ
(Hand held unit) 13 3600.00 46800.00
Total order Value : 65,99,988.80
(US Dollar Six Million Five Hundred Ninety-nine thousand, Nine Hundred Eighty Eight and Eighty cents only)
5) REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTY: Arad represents that its AMR Water Meters and ancillary equipments like radio modems, hand held units etc. being supplied will meet the expected performance standards as stipulated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Arad further represents that it has fully familiarized itself with Mumbai and its terrain and is well acquainted with the intended conditions of installation and use of its AMR Water Meters with the entire system of Radio Modems and other ancillary equipments.
The ARAD walk-by/ drive-by AMR system shall be capable so that the meter readings and data extraction can be obtained as and when needed during the entire period of contract. All the necessary technical assistance for this matter shall be provided by ARAD as and when needed.
Based on the above, Arad warranties effective performance of the system including individual water meters for a period of 18 months from the date of installation/commissioning or 24 months from the date of supply whichever is earlier is applicable against any manufacturing defect, poor workmanship and poor materials. Defective Water Meters shall be repaired/replaced and recalibrated and sent back to us within 48 hrs. through our authorized service provider.
10) PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE : The performance guarantee @ 10% of order value is to be submitted in the form of Bank Guarantee drawn on a first class International bank having more than AA rating, valid for 24 months or completion of total supply as per PO, whichever is later, immediately with Let
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 68)
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Versus Sumac International Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 568
Vinitec Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus HCL Info-systems Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 544)
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Versus Prem Heavy Engineerings Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450).
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.