1. These are five petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) filed by TRF Limited (‘TRF’) seeking interim reliefs against Energo Engineering Projects Limited (‘Energo’) (Respondent No. 1) in the circumstances outlined hereunder.

Background facts

2. TRF is stated to be primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing of Bulk Material Handling Equipments having its unit at Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand. TRF states that is also in the business of installing the said equipments for its various customers and companies.

3. The facts relevant for OMP (I) (Comm.) No. 66/2017 are that TRF was awarded two separate contracts by Energo – the first was in relation to the supply of Wagon Tippler (‘WT’) and Side Arm Charger (‘SAC’) by Purchase Order (‘PO’) dated 10th May, 2014; the other Work Order (‘WO’) was issued by Energo on the same date for erection and commissioning of WT and SAC. The value of both contracts was Rs. 12,17,67,000.

4. It is stated that in terms of the said contracts, TRF was required to furnish an Advance Bank Guarantee (‘ABG’) in the sum equal to 10% of the total value of the supply contract and a separate Performance Bank Guarantee (‘PBG’) for 10% of the order value. Thus, TRF got issued by the Respondent No.2 IDBI Bank Ltd., in favour of Energo an ABG as well as PBG for Rs. 1,12,26,700 and Rs.1,21,76,700 respectively.

5. According to TRF, pursuant to the above PO and WO, it started dispatching the goods in question to Energo from 2nd December, 2014 and continued doing so till 28th September, 2015. It is important to note that both the PO and WO pertained to a Project at Korba where the principal contractor was National Thermal Power Corporation (‘NTPC’), which entered into a contract with Energo. Energo in turn sub-contracted a portion of the said contract to TRF as a result of which the above PO and WO were issued.

6. The case of TRF is that it has not been paid any amount towards supplies made thus far. According to TRF, the total dues against the Korba contract were approximately Rs. 28 crores. This sum includes Rs. 66,12,000, which is the retention money available with Energo. The case of TRF is that as far as the Korba Contract is concerned, it has supplied 87% of the equipment in terms of the PO. Reference is made in this context to the Special Terms & Conditions of the Purchase Order (‘STCPO’). Clause 21 of the STCPO pertaining to Korba contract envisages that 80% of the supplied value along with taxes would be paid by Energo to TRF within 75 days of supply of material at site along with the submission of the documents stated in Clause 21(b) of the STCPO, which includes the tax invoice in original, delivery challan, lorry receipt etc. The balance 10% of the supply value was payable on the successful conduction of the Performance Guarantee Test and submission of the PBG of the equivalent amount for a period of 90 days beyond the completion.

7. The subject matter of OMP (I) (Comm.) No. 67/2017 are the PO and WO issued by Energo in favour of TRF for supply, installation and commissioning of similar equipments for Sipat Project and the subject matter of OMP (I) (Comm.) No. 68/2017 is the supply, installation and commissioning of equipment pertaining to Kudgi Project where again the principal contractor is NTPC.

8. The subject matter of OMP (I) (Comm.) No. 69/2017 & 70/2017 are the POs and the WOs issued to TRF by Energo for supply, installation and commissioning of equipment pertaining to the Coal Handling Plant at Annupur where the principal contractor is LANCO Infra Limited (‘Lanco’). The terms and conditions governing the ABG and PBG are more or less similar in all these contracts. As far as STCPO is concerned, there is a slight variation in the Kudgi Project where Clause 21(b) envisages payment of 65% of the value by Energo to TRF 75 days after the supply.

9. The further common feature in all these cases is that the STCPO itself mandates that if there is any ambig