IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 18 of 2026, I.A. No. 1378 of 2026 (Ex.)
Decided On : 24-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under arbitration act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. petitioner's claims regarding invocation of bgs. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. respondent's position on bg invocation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. court's jurisdiction under section 9 of a&c act. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. court's reasoning and decision on bgs. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 6. final conclusions of the court. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] seeking the following reliefs:
“a. Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order, thereby restraining the Respondents from invoking/ encashing the bank guarantees issued by the State Bank of India i.e., herein Respondent No.2; namely:
i. Performance Bank Guarantee No. 0151824BG0000014 for Rs.3,24,00,324/- dated 20.01.2024;
ii. Mobilization Bank Guarantee No. 0151824BG0000057 for Rs.3,50,46,351/- dated 04.03.2024;
iii. Performance Bank Guarantee No. 0151824BG0000016 for INR. 1,89,00,019/- dated 20.01.2024
b. Pass an order restraining Respondent No.1, its servants, employees and agents from terminating the contracts for Pkg-I and Pkg-IV, in as much as the EPC Contract is also “the subject matter of the arbitration agreement”;
c. Confirm the orders passed in terms of aforesaid Prayers "a" and "b" after notice to the Respondents;
d. Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents;
e. Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. M/s Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. [Petitioner] the Engineering, Procurement and Construction [EPC] Contractor herein, is a construction company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 406, 4th Floor, Hanuman Tower, Athgaon, Guwahati, Assam-781001.
3. National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. [NHIDCL/Respondent No.1] is a Central Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, which, on 25.09.2023, issued certain tenders for execution of balance works of four-laning of National Highway No.37 (Old) [NH-37], Jorhat- Jhanji stretch, under the EPC mode for Package-I (consisting the Road Works) [Pkg-I] and Package-IV (consisting the Structures & Toll Plaza) [Pkg-IV]
4. The Petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder for the said tenders and was issued Letters of Acceptance dated 15.01.2024 for both packages. Pursuant thereto, Contract Agreements dated 07.02.2024 [Agreements] in respect of both said packages came to be executed with NHIDCL.
5. In compliance with the contractual stipulations, the Petitioner furnished two Performance Bank Guarantees and a Mobilisation Bank Guarantee [BGs] issued by State Bank of India [Respondent No. 2] (through the Branch Manager), SME AT Road Branch, Guwahati-794106, aggregating to INR 8,63,46,694/-.
6. It is stated that the appointed date for commencement of works for both packages was fixed as 14.02.2024, and in the course of execution thereafter, the Petitioner achieved substantial progress, namely approximately 97% physical progress and 93.18% financial progress in Pkg-I, and 94.73% physical progress and 92.35% financial progress in Pkg-IV, as reflected in the Stage Payment Statements.
7. It is further stated that in pursuance thereof, certain applications seeking Extension of Time [EOT] including formal applications, were submitted by the Petitioner for completion of the balance of works. The Petitioner, however, asserted that delays in said completion of the project occurred due to Authority Defaults and Force Majeure events, including non-availability of encumbrance-free right of
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd.
Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.
Indian Oil Corporation vs. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors.
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs. M/s Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The invocation of bank guarantees must adhere strictly to the contractual terms; courts may intervene to prevent encashment if it risks undermining arbitration.
Unconditional bank guarantees may only be reviewed for egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice; disputes over contract performance must be resolved through arbitration.
The court emphasized the independence and unconditional nature of bank guarantees, while recognizing exceptions such as fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities.
Invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be restrained unless fraud or irretrievable injustice is established; the nature of bank guarantees is independent and absolute.
The court clarified that injunction against unconditional bank guarantees requires proof of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities, none of which were sufficiently substantiate....
Bank guarantees are independent contracts and can only be restrained in exceptional cases of fraud or irretrievable injustice.
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.