Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. Shorn of verbiage, the present petition is directed against release of monies which stand deposited with this court. The monies came to be deposited, post encashment of bank guarantees initially furnished by respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The attempt is to preserve, by this action preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act), the money lying deposited with this court in the form of fixed deposit receipts, pending the petitioner seeking access to arbitration. The purported ground pressed for seeking injunction against release is “special equities”. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner wisely steered clear of alleged fraud, which fleetingly though, finds mention in the petition, albeit without any material particulars.

3. Therefore, I am called upon to examine as to whether this is a case fit to invoke the exception of special equities, in the background of the following brief facts: Before I proceed further, I must indicate for the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter, be referring to, the petitioner as DSCL, and respondent no. 1, i.e., Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, as RVNL.

3.1 On 06.10.2007, RVNL issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for “construction of Roadbed, Major and Minor Bridges, Track Linking (excluding supply of rails, sleepers, thick web switches & special sleepers), S&T, and OHE and General Electrical work in connection with doubling between Salka Road - Khongsara (25.8 Km) and Khodri – Anuppur (61.6 Km) on Bilaspur Division of South East Central Railway in Chhattisgarh & M.P. State (India)” (hereinafter referred to as the Works).

3.2 DSCL having formed a joint venture (JV) with Best and Crompton Engineers Ltd. submitted its bid, on 29.11.2007. The JVs bid having been accepted, it was issued a letter of acceptance dated 15.04.2008, conveying that the tenure of the contract would be 24 months, with a lag time of 42 days. Thus in effect the tenure of the contract was to commence from 28.05.2008. Having regard to the date of commencement, the contract was to come to an end on 28.05.2010.

3.3 The works, in broad terms, involved double lanning of the railway track spread over a length of 87.40 Kms. The works were required to be executed in 11 block sections, with equal number of train stations.

3.4 DSCL’s principal grievance pivots around the fact that even as of today RVNL has made available only 63.7 Kms of land, which is, roughly though equivalent to 72.8% of the total site. Thus, the charge is that the obligation to provide unimpeded and unhindered site, is not fulfilled. The failure, on the part of the RVNL to perform its obligation is amplified and emphasized under various sub-heads in the petition. These being:

(i) Failure to obtain permission to cut trees.

(ii) Delay in supplying drawings.

(iii) Change in specifications.

(iv) Non-appointment of engineer.

(v) Imposition of arbitrary and extra contractual conditions by threatening encashment of bank guarantees in issue.

4. In so far as the last aspect is concerned, it is averred by DSCL that vide letter dated 21.09.2009, it sought extension of time for completion of work till 25.01.2011, as RVNL threatened encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by it. It is further averred that vide notice dated 24.09.2009, RVNL issued a notice for termination of the contract; albeit with malafide intentions. It is DSCL’s case that vide return communication dated 05.10.2009, it communicated to RVNL that, delay in execution of the work was attributable to it.

5. DSCL avers that the termination notice was withdrawn and extension of time was granted by RVNL subject to certain conditions, one of which apparently included, furnishing of an additional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores. Apart from DSCL being asked to furnish a bank guarantee, it was apparently also asked to achieve a target of 80% of monthly projections post November, 2009 and, any breach of such obligation was to empower RVNL to encash the