Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
SPML Infra Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Hitachi India (P.) Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to a prior court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. bank guarantee invoked by respondent 1. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. counsel acceptance of notices. (Para 3) |
| 4. respondent seeks injunction. (Para 5) |
| 5. legal validity of encashment of bank guarantees. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. opportunity for respondent to submit evidence. (Para 8) |
| 7. order listing and distribution. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.
CM APPL.28298/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
FAO (COMM) 129/2021 & CM APPL. 28297/2021
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd July, 2021 passed by Learned District Judge, Commercial Court-02, South East District, Saket District Courts ("Trial Court") in OMP(I) (Comm) No. 192/2021 whereby the Trial Court has passed an ex parte ad-interim status quo order as regards the encashment of Respondent's No. 2 Bank Guarantees for Rs.16,20,000/- in an application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Bank Guarantee was invoked as the Respondent no.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
