IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH O.A.No.110 of 2026 M/s.Aliyan Construction Co.

Rep. by its Partner Mr.Mohd. Irshad Having their registered office at N-4/4, Nambardar Apartment Jogabai Jamia Nagar, New Delhi -110025 Applicant(s)

Vs M/s.Chennai Metro Rail Limited Through its Chief General Manager (EL-O&M)

Having their registered Office at Admin Building, CMRL Depot Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 107 Respondent(s)

PRAYER To issue an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondent, their men, agents or anyone acting through or under them from in any manner invoking or enchasing the Performance Guarantee bearing No.30960IG000423 and 30960IG000523 dated 16.03.2023 procured by the applicant and issued in favour of the respondent until the disposal of this application.

For Applicant(s): Ms.Nihil Saini for Mr.Adithiyan Viswanathan For Respondent(s): Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar

ORDER

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”) seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from invoking or enchasing the Performance Guarantee bearing Nos.30960IG000423 and 30960IG000523 dated 16.03.2023, procured by the applicant and issued in favour of the respondent.

2.The case of the applicant is that they entered into an agreement dated

21.04.2023 with the respondent, for carrying out certain works. At the time of entering into the agreement, they had also submitted two Performance Bank Guarantees, one for a sum of Rs.12,17,190/- and the other for a sum of Rs.40,57,300/-.

3.The specific case of the applicant is that the applicant was not able to effectively perform their work, due to reasons attributable to the respondent and hence, the work was not able to be completed within the stipulated time, even though the respondent had granted extension of contract up to 31.03.2025. 4.The applicant further complains that the respondent brought about a situation, where the applicant was not in a position to complete the work and hence, the applicant, through a letter dated 19.02.2025, informed the respondent that they are not in a position to continue with the work and therefore, requested the respondent to foreclose the contract.

5.It is the further case of the applicant that since the applicant had expressed their mind to foreclose the contract, the contract had effectively come to an end and the running bills up to R.A.Bill No.2 were also settled by the respondent. Therefore, what remained was only the Performance Bank Guarantees that were issued in favour of the respondent, which were not returned back to the applicant.

6.Under these circumstances, the applicant came to know from their bankers on 15.10.2025 that the respondent had sought to invoke the Bank Guarantees submitted by the applicant. Therefore, according to the applicant, once the contract has come to an end and the bills have also been settled, there is no question of invocation of the Bank Guarantee and therefore, the applicant, on the ground that if the Bank Guarantees are invoked, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and that there are special equities in favour of the applicant, has approached this Court and filed the present application.

7.The applicant has also issued the trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act on 05.02.2026 and the only claim on the side of the applicant is with respect to the amount payable towards Performance Bank Guarantees along with interest.

8.The respondent has filed an affidavit and the respondent has taken a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present application on the ground that till date, the respondent has not invoked the Performance Bank Guarantees. The respondent has taken a further stand that the claim made by the applicant, as if the contract has come to an end is incorrect. In fact, the respondent was repeatedly informing the applicant to complete