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) 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
M/s Safety Controls And Devices Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Ntpc Renewable Energy Limited And Ors. - Respondents
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 42 of 2026, I.A. 2954 of 2026  (Exemption from filing true typed copies of dim or illegible annexures) & I.A. 2955 of 2026 (Seeking exemption from filing synopsis and list of dates with five pages)
Decided On : 12-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Mr. Utsav Misra, Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Mr. Faizan Ahmed and Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anish Gupta, Mr. Kapil Paliwal, Ms. Mehak Arora, Advocates with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Law Officer, Ntpc Rel.

Unconditional bank guarantees may only be reviewed for egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice; disputes over contract performance must be resolved through arbitration.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Invocation of Advance Bank Guarantee - The petitioner sought interim measures to restrain encashment of a bank guarantee and insurance bonds after contract termination; the court reiterated that unconditional bank guarantees should not be interfered with unless fraud or irretrievable injustice is established. The court found no egregious fraud and noted that disputes regarding contract performance are arbitrable. (Paras 18, 30-34)

(B) Bank Guarantee - Nature and independence - A bank guarantee is an independent contract not contingent on the underlying contract’s performance; invocation does not require prior dispute resolution - Courts may intervene only in cases of egregious fraud or irretrievable injury. (Paras 18, 28, 30)

(C) Determinable Contracts - An injunction against the invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be granted when the contract is determinable; disputes arising from such termination are for the arbitral forum. (Paras 24, 26-30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a Section 9 petition seeking protection against the invocation of bank guarantees after the contract was terminated by the respondent for alleged contractor default. The petitioner claimed delays caused by the respondent impacted performance, leading to unwarranted termination.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be restrained absent exceptional circumstances such as fraud or irretrievable injury, which were not demonstrated.

Issues: Whether the invocation of the bank guarantee could be restrained under Section 9 of the Act, following the termination of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that disputes regarding the merits of the termination and alleged defaults were arbitrable, and that allegations of unfairness did not meet the threshold for judicial intervention in invoking the bank guarantee.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for interim measures regarding bank guarantee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's arguments focus on delays and fraud. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
3. respondent asserts entitlement to invoke bank guarantee based on contract terms. (Para 11 , 12)
4. court reviews statutory framework under section 9 of the act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. judiciary reluctant to interfere with unconditional bank guarantees. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. petition dismissed, no grounds for judicial interference found. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition under Section 9 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, The Act has been filed on behalf ofM/s Safety Controls and Devices Ltd., The Petitioner, seeking ad-interim and interim measures restraining Respondent No.1 from acting upon, encashing and/or appropriating the Advance Bank Guarantee and Insurance Surety Bonds furnished by the Petitioner underAgreements bearing Reference No. NRE-CS-5800-004(SS1)-9-FC-COA-207 & NRE- CS-5800-004(SS1)-9-SC-COA-208 both dated 12.03.2025 for ‘ Substation Package of 945MVA Capacity for Power Evacuation from Solar PV Projects at Bikaner, Rajasthan ’ , Agreement. The prayer clause to the instant petition reads as follows:

"…..

a) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining and injuncting the Respondents, its officers, servants, agents, representatives and all persons claiming through or under it from receiving, demanding, claiming, or in any manner whatsoever dealing with any payment or proceeds under Bank Guarantee No. VWHGOPG252530083 dated 10.09.2025 for Rs. 8,71,60,919/- issued by Canara Bank, Mid Corporate Branch (19855), Lucknow, and/or Insurance Surety Bond No. 42250050255100000029 dated 25.07.2025 for Rs. 10,44,48,379.77/- issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and/or Insurance Surety Bond No. 42250050255100000030 dated 25.07.2025 for Rs. Rs. 3,29,83,167.42/- issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and/or any other Bank Guarantees, Insurance Surety Bonds, securities, or deposits furnished by the Petitioner in relation to Contract Nos. NRE-CS-5800-004(SS1)-9-FCCOA-207 & NRE-CS-5800-004(SS1)-9-SC-COA-208 both dated 12.03.2025;

b) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order directing Canara Bank, Mid Corporate Branch (19855), 4/11, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010, Uttar Pradesh, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and all other concerned banks and insurance companies to not encash, honor, remit, pay, or in any manner give effect to any invocation or demand made by the Respondent No.1 in respect of Bank Guarantee No. VWHGOPG252530083 dated 10.09.2025 for Rs. 8,71,60,919/- and/or Insurance Surety Bond No. 42250050255100000029 dated 25.07.2025 for Rs. 10,44,48,379.77/- and/or Insurance Surety Bond No. 42250050255100000030 dated 25.07.2025 for Rs. Rs. 3,29,83,167.42/- issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and/or any other Bank Guarantees, Insurance Surety Bonds, securities, or deposits furnished by the Petitioner in relation to the aforesaid Contract;

c) Pass an order staying any action pursuant to the Invocation Letter dated 31.01.2026 bearing reference no. NREL/RJ/945MVA/15 issued by the Respondent No.1 to Canara Bank in respect of Bank Guarantee No. VWHGOPG252530083;

d) Pass an order restraining the Respondent No.1 from invoking, encashing, acting upon or receiving any proceeds under any Insurance Surety Bonds furnished by the Petitioner in relation to Contract Nos. COA-207 and COA-208

e) Direct the Respondent No.1 to maintain complete status quo with regard to the Bank Guarantees, securities, and deposits and Surety Bonds furnished by the Petitioner during the pendency of the present Petition and the subsequent Arbitral Proceedings;

f) Award costs of the present Petition to the Petitioner;

g) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience."

BRIEF FA

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