JUDGMENT (Oral)

(Video conferencing)

1. These petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act", in short), seek pre-arbitral interim reliefs.

2. The facts in the two petitions, though they pertain to different contracts and different bank guarantees, are more or less identical. Arguments were principally advanced by Mr. Monish Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner by reference to OMP (I) (Comm) 365/2021.

3. As such, the recital hereinafter would be relatable to OMP (I) (Comm) 365/2021. However, reasoning and the findings would mutatis mutandis apply to OMP (I) (Comm) 364/2021.

4. Given the narrow confines of the controversy, it is not necessary to make any detailed allusion to facts. A bare recital would, therefore, suffice.

5. Respondent 1 was contracted by M/s. Jawaharpur Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd as an EPC contractor, for construction of a thermal power project in Uttar Pradesh. Respondent 1 further subcontracted a part of the work to the petitioner, vide two Subcontract Agreements dated 27th December, 2017 and 16th November, 2018. Under these subcontracts, the petitioner was required to undertake the work of civil construction of Coal H