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

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Pyramid E And C Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assam Petro-Chemicals Ltd. - Respondent
W.P(C) No. 3242 of 2020
Decided on : 22-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
P.K.Tiwari, Advocate, R.J.Das, Advocate, K.N.Choudhury, Advocate, N.Deka, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause in the contract and that the public law remedy was not required as an effective private law remedy through arbitration was available.

Headnote:

Bank Guarantee - Contract Dispute - ITB Clause 28.2 - The court analyzed the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent regarding the Performance Bank Guarantee and the termination of the contract. The court found that the arbitration clause in the contract was applicable and the dispute fell within the ambit of Clause 28.2 of the ITB. The court held that the public law remedy was not required as an effective private law remedy through arbitration was available. The court extended the interim order to allow the petitioner to seek interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the termination of the contract and the invocation of the Bank Guarantee by the respondent. The respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to provide the Performance Bank Guarantee as per the ITB format and that the contract was terminated due to the withdrawal of the JV partner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause in the contract and held that the public law remedy was not required as an effective private law remedy through arbitration was available. The court extended the interim order to allow the petitioner to seek interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues: The main issues were the adherence to the ITB format for the Performance Bank Guarantee, the termination of the contract, and the invocation of the Bank Guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause in the contract and that the public law remedy was not required as an effective private law remedy through arbitration was available.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and extended the interim order to allow the petitioner to seek interim protection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. R.J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the communication dt. 27/7/2020 issued by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner; for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to carry out the contract at the original cost and rates with a suitable eligible technological supplier to perform the required transfer of technology in establishing the Formaldehyde plant as per the original tender terms and conditions; for quashing and setting aside the notice of termination dtd. 20/8/2020 and all other consequential actions. Further to that, in the interim, it was prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent No.1 to refrain from forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit covered by BG No. 48/1 dtd. 15/7/2019 amounting to Rs.44, 25, 000.00lakhs and not to issue any termination order to the petitioner with respect to the contract in question.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the Respondent No.1 Company on 16/5/2019 floated an Invitation to Bid (for short ITB) for execution of its 200 TPD Formaldehyde Project at Daknabari, Boitamari in Western Assam. Thereupon the respondent No.1 issued 3 corrigendums to the initial ITB where by vide the corrigendum No.1 some changes were made to the bid terms and the Corrigendum Nos.2 and 3 were with respect to the extension of time.

4. In terms with paragraph 3.3 of the ITB, the bid was required to be accompanied by an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.44, 25, 000.00 and the same was required to be made in the form of Bank Guarantee or Demand Draft payable to Assam Petro-Chemicals Limited at Punjab National Bank, Bhangagarh Branch, Guwahati. The petitioner herein submitted his bid on 15/7/2019 accompanied by the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.44, 25, 000.00 by way of Bank Guarantee issued by the Respondent No.3. It has been alleged that the bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent without demur or without any reservations.

5. Against the said Invitation to Bid, there were three bidders who submitted their bid and the petitioner was found as L-1 bidder. Thereupon on 20/11/2019 the petitioner was issued the Letter of Acceptance of Contract. By the said Letter of Acceptance of Contract, the petitioner was asked to submit the Security Deposit (SD) of 10% of the value of contract i.e., 10% of Rs.70.80 crores only, within 15 days of signing of the contract, by way of Performance Bank Guarantee from a Scheduled Bank etc. There was also an alternate provision for deduction of 10% from contractors running bills towards Security Deposit Payment/adjustment. Clause 7 of the said Letter of Acceptance of Contract being relevant is quoted herein below:

    "7. Submission of Security Deposit

Within fifteen (15) days of the Contract signing, the Contractor shall furnish to owner, their revocable Contract Performance Bank Guarantee from any Indian Nationalised/Scheduled Bank/Indian Branch of an International Bank acceptable to owner for an amount equivalent to 10% (ten percent) of the awarded Contract Price in types and proportions of currencies in which the Contract Price is payable in accordance with the Contract Security deposit amounting to 10% value of the Contract to be provided and shall remain valid upto twelve (12) months beyond the date of acceptance of the project. Alternatively an amount equivalent to 10% from the respective running bills will be deducted and retained with APL upto a period of Twelve (12) months beyond the date of acceptance of the project. Furthermore, the retention money can be released on extension of PBG for the twelve (12) months from the date of acceptance towards defect liability period. The Contractor shall procure

              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