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

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3015

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Srf Altech Limited Through Authorized Signatory Board Resolucation Mr. Gaurav Sharma – Appellant
Versus
M/S Grenesys Projects India Pvt Ltd. Through Its Directors – Respondent
AC 104/2025



Advocates:
Atindra Vijay Sathe[P-1],

##PAGE1##

1 AC-104-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

AC No. 104 of 2025

(SRF ALTECH LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY BOARD RESOLUCATION MR. GAURAV

SHARMA Vs M/S GRENESYS PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS AND OTHERS )

Dated : 29-01-2026

Shri Lokendra Joshi on behalf of Ms. Bhakti Vyas - Advocate for the

applicant.

None for the respondents.

The present application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of

1996’) for appointment of sole Arbitrator.

2. The applicant is a registered company incorporated under the

provisions of Companies Act, 2017 having its registered office at DLF, Unit

No. 236 and 237, Second Floor, Mayur Vihar Phase I Extension, New Delhi.

The respondent No.1 is also an incorporated company and respondents No. 2

to 5 are its Directors. Its corporate office is situated at D-842, Industrial

Area, Okhla, Phase I, Airtel Office, South Delhi, India.

3. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 issued notice to the

respondents, however, they returned unserved. Thus, on 16.12.2025, this

Court directed service of notice by verifying address of the respondents from

the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In addition, dasti service

was also permitted. Pursuant to this order, the notices were tried to be

served on the respondents on their last known address. However, the

premise was found locked and on verification from the website of the

Registrar of Companies, the address which is mentioned by the applicant in

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SREEVIDYA

Signing time: 2/11/2026

10:21:49 AM

##PAGE2##

2 AC-104-2025

the present application was found to be correct. As such, in view of issuance

of notice to the last known address of respondents, the notices are deemed to

be served. Thus, the matter is being heard in absence of the respondents.

4. The facts of the case are that, the applicant is carrying on the

business of manufacturing aluminium foil and other aluminium related

products. They issued an NIT for supply and installation of heating,

ventilation and air conditioning for their sites situated at Jetapura, District

Dhar, MP. Responding to the same, the respondent No. 1/company and its

Directors/respondents No.2 to 5 approached the applicant and after mutual

discussion, an agreement was executed in the form of purchase order dated

22.12.2022 which was revised on 12.04.2023. The total consideration was

decided to be Rs. 3,69,98,715/- which was later on revised to Rs.

3,71,98,715/-. It was agreed between the applicant and respondents that the

respondent will furnish bank guarantee of 20% of the total consideration in

favour of the applicant. Thus, bank guarantee of an amount of Rs.

73,99,743/- was require to be furnished. However, respondents furnished

bank guarantee of Rs. 29,41,000/- and issued cheque for Rs. 44,58,743/-

towards the remaining amount of bank guarantee. Thus, the applicant paid

an amount of Rs. 3,16,18,564/- to the respondents. However, the

respondents performed only partial work by supplying goods to a limited

extent which amounted to a consideration of Rs, 1,64,13,618/-. As such,

though the amount was received in advance however, the goods were not

supplied. Resultantly, the applicant realised the bank guarantee of Rs.

29,41,000/- and after appropriation of the said amount, there remained

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SREEVIDYA

Signing time: 2/11/2026

10:21:49 AM

##PAGE3##

3 AC-104-2025

outstanding dues of Rs. 1,22,63,946/- which have not been paid by the

respondents even after repeated reminders. Even the cheque which was

given (as referred above) has also been dishonored because of insufficiency

of funds for which as separate proceeding in terms of Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act has been instituted.

5. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant contends

that dispute arose between the applicant and the respondents as the

respondents were not paying the outstanding dues, thus in terms of clause 13

of the purchase order,

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top