NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member
State of Rajasthan through
the Project Director – Complainant
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
ICICI Bank Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.1791 of 2016 With
IA/1057/2016 (Condonation of delay),
IA/4392/2017 (Condonation of delay)
IA/3348/2017 (Extension of time),
IA/3625/2017 (Condonation of delay)
Decided on 21.5.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(47)] – Banking – Encashment of Bank Guarantee – Termination of Government contract – A person availing services for commercial profit-making purposes is excluded from definition of Consumer – In present matter, Complainant has not contended that contracts were procured for earning livelihood or self-employment purposes – Both parties have initiated Arbitration proceedings with respect to dispute in question – Considering nature of case entailing contractual obligations of a high value contact, lapsed Bank Guarantees and fact that same dispute has already been contested before ADJ, High Court as well as in Arbitration Proceedings present complaint has been rendered infructuous – Complainant granted liberty to enforce arbitral award and/or pursue the matter with Banking Ombudsman as directed by High Court. (Paras 8, 12 and 13)
Result: Consumer Case dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act’) against the Opposite Party seeking to direct the OPs:—
A. Pass an order directing Respondent No.1 and 2 to encash the Bank Guarantee No.0008BG00139110 amounting to Rs.99,59,100 and Bank Guarantee No.0008BG00071812 amounting to Rs.25,81,581; and/or.;
B. Grant interest at the rate of 24% from the date of invocation of the bank guarantees; and/or;
C. Award compensation to the Petitioner for harassment and mental agony cause by unlawful actions of the Respondent No.1 and 2; and/or;
D. Direct Respondent No.4 to take stern action against Respondent No.1 and 2; and/or;
E. Any other orders, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, is that in 2011, the Government of Rajasthan, through the Petitioner (RUIDP), floated a tender for various sewage infrastructure works at Rajsamand under contract package RUSDIP/TR-02/RSM/WW/02 LOT-1 & 2. On 30.11.2009, the Petitioner awarded the project to OP-3, the lowest tenderer, and entered into a contract agreement for Rs.19,91,81,264, with completion stipulated by 19.05.2012, within a period of 2 years. As per the contract terms, OP-3 submitted two unconditional bank guarantees from ICICI Bank: Bank Guarantee No.0008BG00139110 dated 20.12.2010, amounting to Rs.99,59,100, valid until 31.12.2014, and Bank Guarantee No.0008BG00071812 dated 15.10.2011, amounting to Rs.25,81,581, valid until 14.7.2012, and subsequently extended to 31.03.2015. OP-3 failed significantly in adhering to the contract terms and failed to complete the project despite numerous reminders, causing delay of over 4 years. The complainant forwarded multiple letters regarding the slow progress, dated 22.03.2011, 02.06.2011, 16.6.2011, 17.11.2011, 25.01.2012, 16.03.2012, 5.4.2012, 27.04.2012, 08.05.2012, 28.08.2012 and 05.12.2012. However, OP-3 took no steps to address the slow progress issue. On 09.05.2014, a final show-cause notice was issued to OP-3 for contract termination, to which no reply or representation was received. On 06.08.2014, the termination notice was sent to OP-3, informing them of the breach of contract conditions and the intention of the complainant to terminate the contract. Prior to this, on 24.07.2014, OP-3 filed an Application for injunction under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Court of ADJ No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The learned Judge directed all Respondents to maintain status quo regarding the invocation of Bank Guarantees. On 28.11.2014, the complainant forwarded letters Nos. RUSDIP/RSM/BG/2014-15/CAMP-JPR-4 and RUSDIP/RSM/BG/2014-15/CAMP-JPR-7 to OP-2, clearly informing them of OP-3’s contract breach and requesting invocation of bank guarantees amounting to Rs.99,59,100 and Rs.25,81,581. The Original Bank Guarantees were submitted to the Bank along with these letters and were retained by the bank. On 02.12.2014, OP-2 replied that the stay orders dated 24.07.2014, by learned ADJ No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, were not vacated by a specific order, with the next hearing fixed for 09.01.2015, and, therefore, the OP-2 Bank could not invoke the Bank Guarantees. Notably, OP-2 retained the original bank guarantees without returning them to the complainant. On 13.01.2015, the learned Court of ADJ No.8, Jaipur dismissed OP-3’s Injunction Application with a reasoned order. Subsequently, on 22.04.2015, OP-3 filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur against the Order dated 13.01.2015. The Hon’ble High Court referred the matter for arbitration and directed that the Bank Guarantees not be invoked until 29.04.2015, the date of commencement of Arbitration proceedings. On 06.08.2015, the Sole Arbitrator, Justice Fateh Chand Bansal (Retd.), decided upon the Applications filed by O
A person availing services for commercial profit-making purposes is excluded from definition of Consumer.
The Court held that the invocation of the bank guarantees by HPL was in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantees and that there was no case for interdicting invocation of the bank guarantees.....
Bank guarantees can be invoked regardless of disputes, unless fraud or irretrievable harm is clearly established.
Courts should not interfere with the invocation or payment under an unconditional bank guarantee unless there is egregious fraud or special equity.
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....
A bank guarantee is an independent contract, and its invocation must comply with its terms; disputes regarding underlying agreements should be resolved in civil court.
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.