JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — These two appeals have been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 2 April, 2004 passed by the District Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in Arbitration Peti¬tion No.2 of 2004.

2. The aforesaid Arbitration Petition was filed by Bumihi¬way DDB Ltd. (JV) and others under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim protection by way of restraining the National Highway Authority of India and others from entering upon the work-site and/or giving effect to the order of cancellation dated 14th January, 2004 and further restraining the said National Highway Authority from invoking the bank guarantee(s). The District Judge disposed of the said Arbitration Petition directing as follows :-

“The opp.parties are hereby restrained from expelling the petitioners from the work site till the dispute between the par¬ties is adjudicated and decided within the framework as envisaged in the agreement by the Disputes Review Board and if necessary by arbitration thereafter, within the period as specified in the agreement. The prayer for restraining invocation of the bank guarantees is refused.”

3. Being aggrieved by the latter part of the order refus¬ing to restrain invocation of the bank guarantee(s), Arbitration Appeal No.5 of 2004 has been filed by the Firm which was awarded the work of “Widening and strengthening the existing 2-Lane Carriageway to 4/6-Lanes in the NH No.5 from Km. 233.000 to Km. 284000 (Ichapuram to Ganjam) in the State of Orissa.”

At the other hand challenging the firs part of the impugned order restraining the National Highway Authority from expelling the Firm from the worksite till the dispute between the parties is adjudicated and decided within the framework as envisaged in the agreement by the Disputes Review Board, and if necessary by arbitration thereafter, within the period specified in the agree¬ment, the National Highway Authorities have preferred ARBA No.4 of 2004.

For the sake of brevity, the appellants in ARBA No.5 of 2004 who were petitioners before the District Judge are referred to in this judgment as ‘the Firm’ and the appellants in ARBA No.4 of 2004 who were the opposite parties before the District Judge are referred to as “the N.H. Authority". As the facts and questions of law involved in both the appeals are same, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. In order to appreciate the inter se disputes, bereft of unnecessary details, it would be prudent to state the cases of both sides.

Appellant Nos.2 and 3 in ARBA No.5 of 2004 entered into a joint venture in the name and style of “Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV), appellant No.1. The N.H. Authority which is in charge of execu¬tion of the Golden Quadrilateral under the National Highways Development Programme for the entire country, with the aim and objective of connecting the four metropolis, such as, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Calcutta, called for tenders for the work as described in paragraph-3 above. The Firm, among others, submitted its bid which was accepted by the N.H. Authority and a letter of acceptance was issued in favour of the Firm on 19th April, 2001. An agreement was also entered into on 19th June, 2001 between the parties inter se codifying the terms and conditions. According to the agreement, the work was scheduled to be completed within a period of thirty-two months. The Firm was required to furnish mobilization advance in the form of bank guarantee(s) to a tune of around eighteen crores of rupees, which in fact it did. After completion of all paraphernalia and execution of agreement, it is averred by both sides, the Firm commenced the work. Unfortunately disputes cropped up soon thereafter. According to the N.H. Au¬thority there were dissensions between the two partners of the joint venture, inasmuch as one of the partners made several correspondences wit