IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Ses Energy Services India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Vendanta Limited & Ors. - Respondents
O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 285/2021 and I.A. 10622/2021
Decided On : 26-08-2021
PBG Invocation - Dispute over Equipment Supply - Bank Guarantee - [PBG Invocation] - [Dispute over Equipment Supply] - [Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] - The court discussed the invocation of an unconditional Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) and the dispute over the supply of equipment. The court highlighted the legal principles governing the invocation of unconditional bank guarantees and emphasized that the bank guarantee constitutes an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary. The court found that the invocation of the PBG did not amount to egregious fraud and did not justify injuncting the invocation. The court dismissed the petition seeking interdiction of the PBG invocation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pre-arbitral interim reliefs due to a dispute arising from the attempted invocation of a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) furnished by the petitioner to the respondents. The dispute stemmed from three agreements executed between the petitioner and the respondents for the supply of equipment to be used by the respondents in its offshore drilling facility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the invocation of the PBG did not amount to egregious fraud and did not justify injuncting the invocation. The court dismissed the petition seeking interdiction of the PBG invocation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the invocation of the PBG by the respondents constituted egregious fraud justifying injuncting the invocation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the bank guarantee constitutes an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary and highlighted the legal principles governing the invocation of unconditional bank guarantees. The court found that the invocation of the PBG did not amount to egregious fraud and did not justify injuncting the invocation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking interdiction of the PBG invocation.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks pre-arbitral interim reliefs.
2. Three agreements, executed between the petitioner and the respondents, essentially, constitute the basis of the claim in this petition. All the three agreements were executed on the same date, i.e. 20th August, 2018. The petitioner has titled these agreements as the "Principal Agreement, "Domestic Sale Agreement" and "Offshore Sale Agreement". The Principal Agreement was for providinglocalized separation facility at the Mangala Well Pads of the respondents (used for offshore oil drilling), on Rental and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Basis, the Domestic Sale Agreement was for supply of two packages for the localized separation facility and the Offshore Sale Agreement was supply of a third package. For the purposes of the present dispute, it is not necessary to delve, in detail, into the specifics of the equipment to be provided under these agreements; suffice it to state that, under the agreements, the petitioner was to supply equipments to the respondent, to be used by the respondents in its offshore drilling facility.
3. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the attempted invocation, by the respondents, of a Performance Bank Guarantee ("PBG", in short), dated 28th August, 2018, furnished by the petitioner to the respondents, in terms of the Principal Agreement. Paras 1 to 3 of the bank guarantee may be reproduced, for ready reference, thus:
" 1. In consideration of Vedanta Limited, a body corporate established under the laws of India, and having its registered office at 1st Floor, 'C Wing, Unit 103, Corporate Avenue, Atul Projects, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093, Maharashtra, India and office at DLF Atria, Jacaranda Marg, DLF City-Phase 2, Gurugram 122002, Haryana, India (hereinafter referred to as "Company", which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, including all its successors, administrators, executors and permitted assigns) having entered into a contract no. 42000-11112 dated 9th August, 2018 (hereinafter called the "Contract" which expression shall include all the amendments thereto) with SES Energy Services India Private Limited, a company incorporated and validly existing under the laws of India, having its registered office at Unit No. 101, A-Wing, First Floor, Reliable Tech Park, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400708 (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor", which expression shall unless repugnant to thecontext or meaning thereof, include all its successors, administrators, executors and permitted assigns). The contract has been executed between the contractor and the company with one of the terms of the contract requiring that the contractor furnishes to the company a bank guarantee to t 22,01,62,360/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only) guarantee the satisfactory performance by the contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.
2. We, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., registered under the laws of India, having registered office at 27BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 and acting through its branch office at Center Point, J.B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-40005 9 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank", which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, include all its successors, administrators, executors and permitted assigns), do hereby guarantee and irrevocably undertake to pay to the company (or if the bank has accepted the assignment of the benefit of the Bank Guarantee by the company to any third party pursuant to clause 4 of this Bank Guarantee then to that third party) forthwith, after receipt by the bank of a demand complying with the requirements of this Bank Guarantee on first demand in writing any/all moneys to the extent of t 22,01,62,360/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only) without any demur, r
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee must amount to egregious fraud to justify injuncting the invocation, and the bank guarantee ....
The invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee is enforceable irrespective of disputes between parties, and allegations of egregious fraud must be substantiated by evidence affecting the guarantee....
The court clarified that injunction against unconditional bank guarantees requires proof of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities, none of which were sufficiently substantiate....
Unconditional bank guarantees may only be reviewed for egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice; disputes over contract performance must be resolved through arbitration.
The invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee can only be interdicted in exceptional circumstances, such as egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities.
The Court held that the invocation of the bank guarantees by HPL was in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantees and that there was no case for interdicting invocation of the bank guarantees.....
Bank guarantees are independent contracts and can only be restrained in exceptional cases of fraud or irretrievable injustice.
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.