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
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,