SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Ananta Procon Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
National Highways Authority of India - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 119 of 2021 & I.A. 4812 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2021




The court found that without an immediate intent to invoke the bank guarantee, the petition filed was premature and thus dismissed.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Application for ex-parte ad interim order to restrain the invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee until resolution of disputes by arbitration. Respondent's communication indicated no intent to invoke the guarantee, leading to the conclusion that the petition was premature. (Paras 1-4)

(B) The respondent's willingness to allow the petitioner to continue work confirmed the absence of an immediate cause of action. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought relief against the respondent from taking coercive actions regarding a Performance Bank Guarantee amidst a construction contract dispute, citing Force Majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Para 1)

Findings of Court:
The petition was dismissed as premature given the respondent's communications which showed no intention to invoke the guarantee. (Para 4)

Issues: The court addressed whether there was a valid cause of action for the petition given the respondent's lack of intent to invoke the bank guarantee. (Para 3)

Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that a lack of immediate threat to invoke the bank guarantee aligned with the respondent's assurances, establishing the petition’s premature nature. (Para 4)

Result: Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks interim order under arbitration act (Para 1 , 1)
2. respondent's communication indicates no urgency (Para 2 , 3)
3. court disposes petition, allows future re-approach (Para 4)

ORDER (Oral)

1. The prayer clause in this petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read as under:

    "It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to.-

    a. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order and confirm the same upon return of notice restraining the Respondent from raising any taking any precipitative or any other coercive action against the Petitioner, till the resolution of the disputes by arbitration;

    b. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order and confirm the same upon return of notice restraining the Respondent from invoking the Performance Bank Guarantee dated 06.07.2019 issued by Yes Bank having reference number 007BG0719187001 for a sum of Rs.1.5145 Crore (Rupees One Crore Fifty One Lacs and Forty Five Thousand only) valid up to 30.09.2024, till the resolution of the disputes by arbitration;

    c. Pass any other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. At the very outset, Ms. Kaadambari Puri, learned counsel for the respondent, NHAI, invited my attention to the most recent communication between the petitioner and the respondent, which took place on 26th March, 2021 (wrongly typed, in the letter, as 26th March, 2020), which read thus:

    "Dear Sir,

    With reference to your concern the following clarification is offered:

    1. The price variation/escalation as per Contract agreement taking base rate as per original bid scheduled shall be payable.

    2. Reasonable claim of additional time period may be given for construction of diversion/service road.

    3. As per your letter in para-16 you have requested Authority for declaration of appointed date vide letter dated 26.02.2020 that means up to February-2020 you are agreed to work & as you know in the March-2020 Covid-19 Pandemic stuck & Country went into lockdown with no possibility of carrying out any work, also the above period has been declared as Force Majeure Event by Government.

    Accordingly, you are requested to carry out the work as per decision held in the meeting in PIU-Surat on 24.03.2021 Authority has agreed for appointed date to be declared in the 1st week of April.

    Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely

[Tushar Vyas]

DGM (T) & Project Director

NHAI, PIU-Surat (Expressway)"

3. In view thereof, Ms. Puri submits that this petition is pre-mature, and that the petitioner has rushed to the Court on an unwonted apprehension. She submits that the respondent is interested in the petitioner's continuing and concluding the work. She also points out that there is no whisper of any intent, in this letter, to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, and that, therefore, there is really no cause of action for moving this petition.

4. In view of the statement made by Ms Kaadambari Puri, the present petition is disposed of, noting the above submissions and reserving liberty for the petitioner to re-approach the Court at an appropriate stage, if necessary.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top