SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Cal) 476

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
National Highways Authorities of India - Appellant
Versus
Mbl Infrastructure Limited - Respondent
G.A. No. 1394 of 2009 AND A.P. No. 239 of 2008
Decided on : May 05, 2010

Advocates appeared:
Utpal Bose, D.N. Sharma, Rajshree Kajaria

An order of status quo should ordinarily define the status that being sought to be preserved. If the order of status quo does not define exactly what the Court intended to preserve, the import of the order has to be gleaned from the surrounding circumstances.

Headnote:

STATUS QUO ORDER - INTERPRETATION - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 - SECTION 9 - Status quo order made by the High Court during arbitration proceedings did not extend to the bank guarantees furnished by the contractor, and thus, the contractor was not obliged to keep the bank guarantees renewed or alive.

Fact of the Case:

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and a contractor entered into a contract for the construction or maintenance of a stretch of a national highway. A dispute arose between the parties, and the contractor filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking various reliefs, including an injunction restraining NHAI from giving effect to a termination notice. The High Court passed an order of status quo, without specifying the status that was required to be preserved.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order of status quo did not extend to the bank guarantees furnished by the contractor. The Court reasoned that the prayers in the contractor's petition were confined to the termination notice, and there was no mention of the bank guarantees. The Court also held that the contemporaneous understanding of the parties on the effect of the order was irrelevant, as the order had to be interpreted on its terms.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of status quo extended to the bank guarantees furnished by the contractor? 2. Whether the contractor was obliged to keep the bank guarantees renewed or alive?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of status quo did not extend to the bank guarantees furnished by the contractor because: - The prayers in the contractor's petition were confined to the termination notice, and there was no mention of the bank guarantees. - The order of status quo did not define the status that was required to be preserved. 2. The contractor was not obliged to keep the bank guarantees renewed or alive because: - The order of status quo did not impose such an obligation on the contractor. - The applicant should have been vigilant and should have assessed the contractor's stand on the matter.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application filed by NHAI seeking a direction to the contractor to renew the bank guarantees.

JUDGMENT

1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows :

THE Court: GA No. 1394 of 2009 is an application by the respondent to the proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking, principally, a direction on the petitioner in the section 9 proceedings to renew certain bank guarantees that have now lapsed.

2. THE applicant is the National Highways Authority of India and the contract related to the construction or maintenance of a stretch of a national highway in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In AP No.239 of 2008, the contractor complains of a letter of December 31, 2007 by which the contract was sought to be terminated and the orders prayed for are as follows:

a. Injunction restraining the respondent from giving any effect to and/or any further effect to and/or taking any step pursuant to the notice of termination purporting to bear the date 31st December, 2007 being annexure "CCC" hereof;

b. Direction upon the respondent to forthwith pay the sum of Rs. 11,04,80,372/- due and payable to the petitioner, as more fully stated in paragraph 98 hereof;

c. Alternatively, the respondent be directed to furnish security for the sum of Rs. 11,04,80,372/-;

d. Injunction be issued restraining the respondent, its men, agents and servants from circulating the letter purporting to bear the date 31st December, 2007 and/or the contents thereof in any manner whatsoever;

e. Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above;

f. Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

Upon such petition being received an order was made on May 15, 2008, the material part whereof needs to be noticed in its entirety:

"Counsel for NHAI submits that in such contract value is of importance. Clause 53 empowers the respondent to terminate the contract for any of the fundamental breaches as stated under clause 53.2 of the said agreement. Therefore, under clause 53.2(h) and 53.2(i) the letter dated 31st December, 2007 has been issued. There is no scope to pass any interim order as the petitioner has filed the instant application after a delay of five months. Therefore, there is no urgency. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as on date. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties and this order will not debar the parties from relying on the letter dated 31st December, 2007. The parties will be free to agitate their claims and counter claims before the learned Arbitrator."

3. IT is the applicant's case that the parties understood the order of status quo (which, incidentally, did not specify the status that was required to be preserved) to imply that the bank guarantees that had been furnished by way of performance guarantees or the other bank guarantees that had been furnished on behalf of the contractor could not be encashed even if valid grounds existed or arose for encashing the same. The applicant says that, as a corollary, it was incumbent on the contractor to keep the bank guarantees alive till the order of status quo was vacated or till the reference was concluded.

4. IN furtherance of the applicant's contention that the parties understood the order of status quo as such, the applicant has referred to its letter of June 17, 2008 by which advocates representing the applicant wrote to advocates representing the contractor as follows:

"Please note that in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the above matter, the parties have (sic, have been) directed to maintain status quo in respect of the notice of termination dated 31st December, 2007. We have been informed by our client that the following Bank Guarantees are expiring on the dates shown here in below: (Some particulars indicated) IN view of the above, you are requested to advise your clients to renew the bank guarantees for further period till the arbitration in the ma
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top