IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Kuber Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM) 364 of 2021 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM) 365 of 2021
Decided On : 12-11-2021
Arbitration - Interim Reliefs - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Clause 9.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) - Clause 12 of the GCC - Invocation of Bank Guarantee - Financial Condition of Parties
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pre-arbitral interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pertaining to two Subcontract Agreements. The respondents were contracted for a thermal power project and further subcontracted a part of the work to the petitioner. The respondents defaulted in making payments to the petitioner, who sought to restrain the invocation of an unconditional Bank Guarantee provided by the petitioner. The petitioner also sought a direction for the respondents to secure the claims of the petitioner by making a deposit in the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitions were completely misconceived and sought to re-agitate settled issues. The Court held that an unconditional Bank Guarantee can only be restrained in exceptional circumstances such as egregious fraud, special equities, or irretrievable injustice. The Court emphasized that the financial condition of the parties and the closure of the contract by the respondents did not justify the stay of invocation of the Bank Guarantee or the furnishing of security. The Court also noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Court with the same prayer, which was rejected by a coordinate Bench.
Issues: The issues involved the restraint of invocation of an unconditional Bank Guarantee and the direction for the respondents to furnish security.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an unconditional Bank Guarantee can only be restrained in exceptional circumstances such as egregious fraud, special equities, or irretrievable injustice. The Court emphasized that the financial condition of the parties and the closure of the contract by the respondents did not justify the stay of invocation of the Bank Guarantee or the furnishing of security. The Court also noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Court with the same prayer, which was rejected by a coordinate Bench.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions with costs, in each case of Rs.2.5 lakhs, and directed the petitioner to deposit the costs with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Centre (DHCLSC) within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment.
(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 Handling System and the erection of Electrostatic Precipitators and Flue Gas Desulphurization Plants, as part of the larger Thermal Power Project in respect of which Respondent 1 had entered into the contract with M/s. Jawaharpur Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. The substantial completion date of the work, as per the contract, was 12th July, 2020 and 22nd December, 2021.
6. Clause 9.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), as amended by the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC), representing the contractual relationship between the petitioner and Respondent 1, read thus:
"9.1 Performance bond
a) The Subcontractor shall submit to the Contractor, as a guarantee of the faithful performance of the obligations under this Subcontract and a guarantee of the quality of Works and materials provided by the Subcontractor, an unconditional Performance Bond acceptable to the Contractor in the following manner
The Performance Bond shall expire after expiry date of Warranty Period as defined in Clause 12 [WARRANTY] in this Subcontract. Such guarantee shall be binding notwithstanding any variations; alterations or extensions of time that may be given or be agreed upon. No interest shall be paid for this bond.
b) The Performance Bond shall be provided by a first class bank of the Country at Contractor's discretion in the form attached hereto acceptable to the Contractor."
7. As is seen, Clause 9.1(a) refers to the warranty period as defined in Clause 12 of the GCC. Clause 12 of the GCC, with its sub clauses 12.1 and 12.2, read thus:
"12 WARRANTY
12.1 Warranty Period
a) The warranty period for the Works for the warranties shall commence at the Substantial Completion Date (SCD) for a period of twenty four (24) months thereafter.
b) The Warranty Period with respect to any Work that is repaired, replaced, modified or otherwise altered shall be extended for a further period of twenty four (24) months from the date of completion of such repair, replacement, modification or alteration [the "Warranty Period", which shall include any extensions to the warranty period of the above paragraph a) under this paragraph b)]...."
"12.2 Repair of Defects
a) The Contractor shall promptly notify the Subcontractor in writing of the discovery of any defects or deficiencies in the Work.
b) In the event of a
The court emphasized the independence and unconditional nature of bank guarantees, while recognizing exceptions such as fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities.
Unconditional bank guarantees may only be reviewed for egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice; disputes over contract performance must be resolved through arbitration.
A confirmed Bank Guarantee/irrevocable Letter of Credit cannot be interfered with unless there is established fraud or irretrievable injustice involved in case.
Bank guarantees are independent and unconditional contracts, and courts should refrain from interfering with their invocation unless exceptional circumstances such as fraud or irretrievable injury ar....
A party seeking to restrain the invocation of a bank guarantee must demonstrate either clear fraud or irretrievable injustice; mere contractual disputes do not suffice for injunctions.
The invocation of bank guarantees must adhere strictly to the contractual terms; courts may intervene to prevent encashment if it risks undermining arbitration.
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.