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
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Kuber Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 158 of 2021
Decided On : 19-05-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9(1) - Performance Bank Guarantee - Petition filed to restrain invocation and encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs.1,18,75,000/- and an HDFC bank cheque of equivalent amount till further orders - Court held that the exception to non-interference with bank guarantees requires clear fraud or irretrievable injustice, neither of which was established (Paras 12, 18, 21).

(B) Special equities - The court reiterated that contractual disputes between parties do not justify injunctions against bank guarantees, and merely pleading special equities without supporting evidence was inadequate (Paras 17, 20).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a subcontractor, sought to prevent the respondent from invoking a performance bank guarantee under a contract for civil works at a power station due to claimed delays and scope changes.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for the petitioner’s request to interdict the bank guarantee and rejected it but allowed a temporary interdict on cheque presentation for two weeks, facilitating discussions (Paras 22, 24).

Issues: The central issues were the invocation of the performance bank guarantee and the return of the cheque implicated in the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the law allows for bank guarantees to be honored except in rare circumstances of fraud or irretrievable harm, reiterating its judicial stance on non-interference absent clear grounds (Paras 15, 18).

Result: Petition disposed of, with the temporary stay on the cheque presentation (Paras 22, 26).

Table of Content
1. factual background about the contract and dispute between parties. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner regarding interdicting the bank guarantee. (Para 3 , 11 , 12 , 22 , 24 , 25)
3. court observations on the limited grounds for interdicting bank guarantees. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21)
4. final orders regarding the cheque and petition disposition. (Para 23 , 26)

JUDGMENT

[Hearing held through videoconferencing]

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

IA Nos. 6495/2021, IA 6496/2021

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 158/2021

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the `A&C Act'), inter alia, praying as under:

    "i) Direct the Respondent not to invoke and/or encash the Performance Bank Guarantees No. 003GT02180720033 of Rs.1,18,75,000/- dated 13.03.2018 till further orders;

    ii) Direct the Respondent not to encash the HDFC bank cheque bearing No. 000209 amounting to Rs.1,18,75,000/- till further orders;

    iii) Restrain the Respondent from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner in relation to the Contract dated 27.12.2017."

3. Mr Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, essentially, stressed on two reliefs. First, that this Court should restrain the invocation of the bank guarantee in question (Performance Bank Guarantee No. 003GT02180720033 of Rs.1,18,75,000 - hereinafter `the Bank Guarantee'); and second, that the respondent be directed not to encash the cheque furnished by the petitioner (Cheque bearing No. 000209 amounting to Rs.1,18,75,000/-) till further orders.

4. On 27.12.2017, the parties had entered into an Agreement (Contract No: DPSI-HO-Jawa-15 - hereafter `the Agreement') whereby the respondent sub-contracted CHS Civil Works of Jawaharpur Super Thermal Power Station (2 x 660 MW Project) to the petitioner. In terms of Clause 9.1 of the Agreement, the petitioner furnished the Bank Guarantee as a Performance Guarantee. The petitioner claims that it also issued a cheque for an equivalent value.

5. Clause 9.1 of the Agreement is relevant and set out below:

    "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 acceptance to the Contractor In the following manner

Performance Bank Guarantee equivalent to Two point Five percent (2.5%) of Contract Value.

In leu of Performance Bank Guarantee equivalent to Two point Five percent (2.5%) of Contract Value, Signed Cheque without date equivalent to Two point Five percent (2.5%) of Contract Value and Five Percent payment hold from progressive payment.

Contractor shall return the cheque and hold amount once Subcontractor submits Performance Bank Guarantee equivalent to Two point Five percent (2.5%) of Contract Value.

    The Performance Bond shall expire after expiry date of Warranty Period as defined in Clause 12 [WARRANTY] in this Sub-contract. 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."

6. The petitioner claims that the scope of the work was considerably enhanced and the petitioner requested the respondents to correspondingly enhance the value of the Agreement. It is stated that on 08.01.2019, a meeting was held between the parties to sort out the issue of additional financial implication and thereafter, on 21.08.2019, to commensurate with the enhanced scope of work, the value of the Agreement was revised to Rs.66.26 crores.

7. The petitioner claims that there was sign

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