JUDGMENT :

These two Original Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are intertwined and hence disposed of by this common judgment. The following questions surface for consideration in these Original Petitions:

1. Whether a party to a contract can invoke bank guarantee, after passing the Award, which found no default on the part of the party against whom bank guarantee is sought to be enforced, especially when the Award is not stayed under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

2. When an interim relief under Section 9 is refused by the Court considering a petition under Section 34 of the Act, whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution, especially in the absence of the four parameters culled out in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai[(1998) 8 SCC 1]? When the order impugned is not one which patently lacks inherent jurisdiction, whether the High Court can justifiably exercise its power of superintendence under Article 227?

By the discussion to follow, this Court answers both the questions in the negative.

2. The petitioner herein is the Airports Authority of India ('the petitioner authority', for short)