B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyd – Appellant
Versus
Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia – Respondent
ORDER :
The applicant herein is SEW Infrastructure Limited (SEW), a company incorporated under the laws of India and having its registered office at Begumpet, Hyderabad; the respondent No.1 is the Ethiopian Roadways Authority (ERA), an entity of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; the respondent No.2 is the Bank of Abyssinia (BOA) and the respondent No.3 is the State Bank of India (SBI).
Background facts:
2. In the bidding process floated by ERA, a contract for construction of roads under Mombassa – Nairobi – Addis Ababa Corridor Phase III Project: Hawassa – Ageremarian Section, Lot 1 : Hawassa – Chuko in Ethiopia was awarded to SEW and contract agreement dated 30.11.2012 was entered into by the parties. In terms of the contract BOA has issued four Bank Guarantees (BGs) to ERA on the basis counter BGs issued by SBI on behalf of SEW. Out of four BGs, two BGs are Advance Bank Guarantees (ABG), which are encashable on the condition of SEW applying the funds received for the project to purposes, which are outside the scope of the roads project. The other two BGs are Performance Bank Guarantees (PBG), which are encashable upon declaring the contractor/SEW being in default under
GTC Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1998) 3 SCC 376 : AIR 1998 SC 1566]
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
I. SUDERSHAN RAO v. EVERSHINE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Jaipur Municipal Corpn. v. C.L. Mishra [(2005) 8 SCC 423]
KANWAR SINGH SAINI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SAPTARISHI HOTELS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY
ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED v. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM
Shiv Shanker v. U.P.SRTC [1995 Supp (2) SCC 726 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1018 : (1995) 30 ATC 317]
Expression “entertain” means to consider by application of mind to the issues raised. The Court entertains a case when it takes a matter up for consideration. The process of consideration could conti....
Invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be restrained unless fraud or irretrievable injustice is established; the nature of bank guarantees is independent and absolute.
The award holder can seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 until the complete satisfaction of the award.
Unsuccessful party may invoke post-award Section 9 for interim measures like bank guarantee extension in rare compelling cases meeting higher threshold, preserving disputed amounts pending Section 34....
Arbitration agreement - Order of termination of contract - Jurisdiction of learned Arbitrator having been circumscribed by the order of reference of this Court, no fault can be found with interpretat....
(1) There is nothing in Arbitration Act that prohibits contracting parties from agreeing to a provision providing for an award being made by an Emergency Arbitrator.(2) No appeal lies under Section 3....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.