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

2026 Supreme(Del) 90

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ashkrit Tiwari, Aditi Shrivastava, Kartik Pendharkar, Kanika Arora, Aman Kumar, Abhinav Akash
For the Respondents: Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Shubham Janghu, Santosh Kumar Rout, Devna Soni, Shivashish Dwivedi, Varsha Jain

The invocation of bank guarantees must adhere strictly to the contractual terms; courts may intervene to prevent encashment if it risks undermining arbitration.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Invocation of bank guarantees - Appellant seeks to restrain encashment of bank guarantees due to various construction delays and disputes regarding outstanding vendor payments including a mobilization bank guarantee - Respondent contends invocation is lawful based on alleged defaults - Court emphasized the necessity for preserving the subject matter of arbitration and outlined the limited jurisdiction under Section 9 to protect against encashment of guarantees pending arbitration. (Paras 30, 33, 35, 57)

(B) Contracts - Determinable Contracts - Court found that an order of stay against termination of such contracts is impermissible as it would amount to enforcing a contractual relationship recognized as terminable. (Paras 35, 58)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a construction contractor, filed a petition for interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act after Respondents issued a termination notice and threatened to invoke bank guarantees over alleged defaults by the Petitioner in the execution of contracts for the four-laning of National Highway No.37. (Paras 1-8)

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that encashment of bank guarantees is stayed, as the grounds for invocation had not been satisfied and it protected the efficacy of upcoming arbitral proceedings. (Paras 57, 55)

Issues: The legality of invoking bank guarantees in relation to alleged defaults and the nature of contractual obligations - whether such guarantees may be invoked for extra-contractual disputes. (Paras 41, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The legal scope of Section 9 emphasizes safeguarding the subject matter of the dispute and ensuring that parties are not prejudiced by excessive encashments which could render arbitration futile, underscoring that guarantees must be invoked only in accordance with explicit contractual provisions. (Paras 30, 54)

Result: The encashment of the bank guarantees is stayed; the court refrains from granting an injunction against the termination notice as the contract is determinable.

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

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