Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Klsr Infratech Limited, vs The Reserve Bank Of India, on 17 February, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20420 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner had given bank guarantees to the 3rd
respondent on account of a contract with the 3rd respondent.
These bank guarantees were obtained through the 2nd
respondent. The petitioner had approached this Court by way of
present writ petition, to restrain the invocation of these bank
guarantees.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
"that the action of the 1st respondent
restricting the relief of moratorium only in
certain cases and not extending the benefit to
all kinds of transactions by applying the
principle of force majeure clause inspite of
declaration of pandemic Covid-19 by the
Government of India and the action of the 2nd
respondent allowing the bank guarantees
0384191GPER0053 and 0384191GPER0054
to be invoked by the 3rd respondent, as illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to principle of force
majeure applied in contractual matters and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to
allow 3rd respondent to invoke the respective
bank guarantees for a reasonable period in
the interests of justice"
3. This Court by an order dated 04.11.2020 had
directed the 2nd respondent not to invoke the bank guarantees
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.20420 of 2020
0384191GPER0053 and 0384191GPER0054. This order was
extended from time to time. Subsequently, the application for
grant of stay (I.A.No.1 of 2020), the application for vacate stay
(I.A.No.3 of 2020) and the application for extension of bank
guarantees (I.A.No.4 of 2020) were disposed of.
4. This Hon'ble Court had directed that the bank
guarantees would be extended for a further period of one year
from their respective dates of expiry within one week from the
date of this order and in the event of the said extension not
taking place, I.A.No.1 of 2020 stands dismissed and I.A.No.3 of
2020 shall be deemed allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the
3rd respondent herein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court
by way of S.L.P.No.2007 of 2021. On 03.02.2021, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had granted an interim stay on the Judgment
dated 19.01.2021. Thereafter, it appears that the bank
guarantees have been encashed by the 3rd respondent.
5. In view of the said encashment nothing further
would survive. However, Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit that the first part of the prayer
in the writ petition which seeks declaration that the 1st
respondent cannot restrict the relief of moratorium only to
certain cases would remain.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st
respondent/Reserve Bank of India ought to have given a
moratorium on all kinds of transactions on account of the
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.20420 of 2020
declaration of the Pandemic Covid-19 by the Government of
India and the restriction of the moratorium granted by the 1st
respondent only to certain transactions, is arbitrary.
7. I am afraid that I cannot accede to this contention of
prayer, in as much as right to invoke the bank guarantees is
with the 3rd respondent and not the 2nd respondent which would
be bound by the circulars and directions issued by the 1st
respondent.
8. In these circumstances, this writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
17.02.2021
sdp
