JUDGMENT :

(J. Sreenivas Rao, J.)

1. This appeal, under section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, read with Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2022 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Application No.54 of 2016.

2. The appellant is the applicant in Arbitration Application No. 54 of 2016, which is SEW Infrastructure Limited, a company incorporated under the Laws of India and having its registered office at Begumpet, Hyderabad, hereafter called as SEW. The respondent No.1 is the Ethiopian Roadways Authority, hereafter called as ERA, an entity of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the respondent No.2 is the Bank of Abyssinia hereafter called as BOA and the respondent No.3 is the State Bank of India (SBI).

3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

3.1 The appellant submitted a bid on 22-06-2022 for awarding contract works for construction of roads under Mombassa – Nairobi – Addis Ababa Corridor Phase III Project: Hawassa – Ageremarian Section, Lot 1 : Hawassa – Chuko in Ethiopia. In the bidding process floated by ERA, a contract for construction of roads was awarded to SEW and contract agreement dated 30.11.2012 was entered into by the parties. In terms of the contract the BOA has issued four Bank Guarantees (BGs) to ERA on the basis of counter BGs issued by SBI/third respondent on behalf of SEW. Out of four BGs, two BGs are Advance Bank Guarantees hereafter called as ABG, which are en-cashable on the condition of SEW applying the funds received for the project purposes, which are outside the scope of the roads project. The other two BG’s are Performance Bank Guarantees hereafter called as PBG, which are en-cashable upon declaring the contractor/SEW being in default under the contract.

3.2 While things stood thus, disputes arose between SEW and ERA, on delay in execution of the project. SEW claimed that delay is attributable to ERA, as it did not hand over the project sites without obstructions and encumbrances for execution of the road project. The General Conditions of Contract hereafter called as GCC provided for mechanism of forming a Dispute Board to which any dispute arising between the parties has to be referred. It is the case of SEW that as per Clauses 20.4 and 20.5 without referring the dispute to the Dispute Board and without following conditions of settlement under GCC, ERA unilaterally issued notice of termination dated 20.05.2016, which was served on SEW on 23.05.2016 giving a notice of 14 days for termination of the contract. SEW issued reply dated 30.05.2016 asserting that delay and slow progress of work was due to various reasons attributable to ERA.

3.3 In letter dated 22.04.2016, ERA provisionally extended the contract period by 60 days, which was expired on 21.06.2016. It appears that SEW made a request for extension of time but without considering the said application, ERA terminated the contract.

4. Taking recourse to clause 20.06 as the General condition of contract that envisages reference to Arbitral Tribunal for resolution of disputes the appellant herein filed Arbitration Application No. 54 of 2016 before this Court under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “The Act”) for the following reliefs :

i) to restrain ERA, its agents, officers, employees etc., by way of injunction from invoking two ABGs and two PBGs;

ii) to restrain BOA from honouring/en-cashing ABG and PBG on behalf of SEW;

iii) to restrain SBI from honouring/en-e-cashing counter BG issued to BOA; and

iv) to stay operation of all further actions pursuant to the notice of termination, dated 20-05-2016 including any coercive steps and en-cashment of BG issued on behalf of SEW by BOA and SBI.

5. Initially, this Court passed interim order dated 06.06.2016, which reads as under :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitio