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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M/s. National Federation of Farmers, Procurement Processing & Retailing Cooperatives of India Ltd., New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
M/s. NLC India Limited, Chennai – Respondent
Arb. O.P. (Com.Div) No. 302 of 2023 & O.A. No. 267 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:A.L. Somayaj, Senior Counsel, G. Kalyan Jhabakh, M/s. Surana & Surana, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, N. Nithianandam, R2, O.S. Karthikeyan, Advocates.

The court confirmed that a valid arbitration agreement exists under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and granted an injunction against bank guarantee invocation due to potential irreparable harm.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Request for appointment of arbitrator - Applicant filed for injunction against invocation of bank guarantee due to alleged fabricated documents submitted in tender - Court reviewed the validity of arbitration clause and satisfaction of legal requirements for injunction - Found existence of valid arbitration clause and potential irreparable harm if bank guarantee is invoked without due process. (Paras 56, 75)

(B) Prima Facie View - The court expresses a prima facie view regarding arbitration clause during Section 11 petition; the existence of an arbitration agreement is a matter for the tribunal to decide. (Paras 27, 55)

(C) Factors for Injunction - To grant an injunction against invocation of a bank guarantee, the applicant must prove egregious fraud or irretrievable harm. (Paras 60, 70)

(D) Balance of Convenience - The court found in favor of the applicant due to the potential for irretrievable harm if the bank guarantee was invoked prematurely, particularly given the large sum involved. (Paras 73, 74)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose from a tender for a solar power project where the applicant provided a bank guarantee. The first respondent disqualified the bidder based on alleged submission of a fabricated document.

Findings of Court:
The arbitration clause is valid, and the applicant established grounds for injunction against invoking the bank guarantee, pending arbitration.

Issues: Validity of arbitration agreement, satisfaction of legal requirements for injunction, and potential harm due to invocation of bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for arbitration in disputes arising out of tender documents. The applicant's potential for irretrievable injury was significant enough to warrant an injunction against the invocation of the bank guarantee.

Result: Applications allowed, with an arbitrator appointed to adjudicate the dispute and an injunction granted against invocation of the bank guarantee.

Table of Content
1. arbitrability of disputes. (Para 1)
2. facts surrounding the tender and bank guarantee. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments about arbitration agreement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. respondent's position on alleged fabricated documents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court's examination of statutory provisions. (Para 26 , 27)
6. discussion on judicial discretion in arbitration. (Para 28 , 29)
7. principles guiding court's review at referral stage. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
8. court's prima facie view on arbitration existence. (Para 33 , 54)
9. court's order on injunction and its grounds. (Para 56 , 57 , 70)
10. final orders of the court. (Para 75 , 76)

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and to direct the respondent to pay the cost.)

1. The issue that arises for consideration in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.302 of 2023 as well as in the application O.A. No.267 of 2023 are as follows:

a) Whether the dispute raised by the applicant / petitioner is an arbitrable dispute;

b) Whether the applicant / petitioner has satisfied the legal requirements for obtaining an order of injunction from invocation of bank guarantee.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of O.A. No.267 of 2023 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.302 of 2023:

The applicant/petitioner participated in a tender called for by the first respondent for setting up of 500 MW ISTS connected Solar Power Project on PAN India basis with Operation and Maintenance for 3 years. One of the tender requirements was that the bidder will have to furnish a bank guarantee for a value of Rs.10,94,06,000/- for every 100 MW along with the bid.

3. The applicant / petitioner as the leader of the consortium, responded to the tender and had bid for 200 MW of Solar Power Project. The other consortium partners were

(i) M/s. U-Solar Clean Energy Solutions Private Limited; and

(ii) M/s.Nitin Sai Constructions.

4. In compliance with the tender requirements, the applicant/petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee from the second respondent bank for a sum of Rs.21,88,12,000/- dated 31.12.2022 which was valid till 30.11.2023. The first respondent, by its letter dated 27.03.2023, informed the applicant/petitioner that its bid is disqualified, since the letter dated 20.06.2021 issued by M/s.Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) is a fabricated document. The said letter was submitted by the applicant/petitioner to the first respondent as part of the tender requirements.

5. According to the applicant/petitioner, even without giving any opportunity to clarify with regard to the letter dated 20.06.2021 issued by M/s.Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) which is the reason given by the first respondent for disqualification of the applicant''s/petitioner''s bid, the first respondent has attempted to arbitrarily and illegally invoke the bank guarantee of Rs.21,88,12,000/- given by the applicant/ petitioner along with its bid.

6. According to the applicant/petitioner, if the bank guarantee is allowed to be invoked by the first respondent, the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury. The applicant/petitioner also contends that the allegation of the first respondent that the applicant/petitioner had submitted a fabricated document, viz., the letter dated 20.06.2021 issued by M/s.Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) is false.

7. In the aforementioned circumstances, O.A.No.267 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner for an injunction to restrain the first respondent from invoking the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.21,88,12,000/- pending disposal of the arbitration.

8. The applicant/petitioner also contends that there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties to the dispute. According to the applicant/petitioner, Volume - I A, whi

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top