Delhi High Court
Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Ircon International Ltd on 9 May, 2017
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 103/2017 & CM Nos. 17715/2017,
17716/2017
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Malavika Lal and
Mr.Arnav Kumar, Advocates.
versus
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Leena Tuteja, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 09.05.2017
1. The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of its application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter alia
from restraining the respondent from encashing/invoking the Bank
Guarantees as per Schedule-I and Annexure-1 (colly) attached to the
petition.
2. By the impugned order dated 05.05.2017, the learned Single Judge
has declined to pass any restrain orders against the respondent and further
directed that the respondent shall furnish the correct computation of the
amounts due to it from the appellant against the mobilisation advance to
the Banks and approach the Banks only for the amounts due and payable
and not to the full extent of the sums guaranteed of the Bank guarantees.
3. Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent
states that the some of the Bank Guarantees offered by the appellant have
been encashed and the rest of the mobilisation advance has already been
adjusted from the running account bills of the appellant. He hands over a
computed statement as furnished by the respondent to the concerned
Banks, with a copy to the learned Counsel for the appellant.
4. It is submitted that against Bank guarantees worth Rs.180 Crores
offered by the appellant, the respondent has encashed Bank Guarantees to
the tune of Rs.117.44 Crores, after adjusting the mobilisation advances
that have been recovered from the running account bill of the appellant.
He clarifies that the Bank guarantees of Rs.4 Crores offered by the
appellant through ICICI Bank has not been encashed and the same shall
be returned to the appellant within one week.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present appeal is disposed
of having been rendered infructuous along with the pending applications.
6. At this stage, Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant submits that the project in question is very
prestigious and of national importance and therefore, the respondent may
be called upon to re-consider its decision to terminate the contract vide
letter 27.04.2017.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent states that
he has no objection to the appellant approaching the respondent directly
for any negotiations/reconsideration of the decision taken to terminate the
contract.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 09, 2017
ssc
