N. S. Associates Pvt Ltd vs National Building Constructions ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2549 Del

$~35.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1850/2014 and I.A. 1526/2014
      N. S. ASSOCIATES PVT LTD                    ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr. Tarique Siddiqui, Advocate with
                     Mr. S. Ahmed, Advocate

                        versus


      NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED & ANR
                                                   ..... Defendants
                     Through: Mr. S.C. Gupta, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 25.03.2015

1. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the defendants/NBCC

was requested to obtain instructions from his clients if they would be

willing to submit the dispute between the parties to arbitration on the

condition that the plaintiff shall be directed to keep the bank

guarantees in question alive during the currency of the contract and

till an award is made by the Arbitrator.

2. Today, counsel for the defendants/NBCC states that his clients

are not inclined to opt for ADR and would rather contest the present

suit on merits.

3. Pleadings are complete in the suit. However, admission/denial

of documents has yet to take place.

4. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiff states that on 13.06.2014,

an ex parte ad interim order was passed, restraining the defendants

from encashing the bank guarantees as detailed in para 7 of the said

order, on the condition that the plaintiff shall keep those bank

guarantees alive till further orders. Counsel draws the attention

of the Court to the order dated 02.07.2014. On 02.07.2014, the

statement of the counsel for the defendants was recorded to the effect

that the defendants had neither invoked and nor were they going to

invoke the bank guarantees in respect of which a restraint order has

been passed.

5. Counsel for the defendants responds by clarifying that the

statement made on 02.07.2014 was to the effect that the defendant

No.1 had not invoked the bank guarantees in question as on

02.07.2014 and adds that even as on date, the said bank guarantees

in respect whereof a restraint order has been passed, have not been

invoked by his clients.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the aforesaid

submission made by the counsel for the defendants, he does not wish

to pursue the suit any further. However, the plaintiff reserves its right

to seek its legal remedies against the defendants in case a fresh cause

of action arises in the future.

7. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The suit is disposed of

alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH 25, 2015 rkb