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
| 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
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.
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.
Bank guarantees are independent and unconditional contracts, and courts should refrain from interfering with their invocation unless exceptional circumstances such as fraud or irretrievable injury ar....
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 invocation of bank guarantees must adhere strictly to the contractual terms; courts may intervene to prevent encashment if it risks undermining arbitration.
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.