Hospitech Management Consultant ... vs Director General Married ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3906 Del

$~31
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                 Date of Decision: 12.7.2018
+     O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 255/2018
      HOSPITECH MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
      PVT. LTD.                             ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv.

                           versus

      DIRECTOR GENERAL MARRIED
      ACCOMMODATION PROJECT,
      MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT
      OF INDIA, & ANR.                          ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Adv. for R-1.
                               Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                    ORDER

% 12.07.2018

1. Mr. Gogna, who, appears for respondent No.1 submits that the reply has been filed. Mr. Gogna further says that respondent No.1 was compelled to invoke the bank guarantee, as the petitioner was in breach of its obligation.

2. It is also the learned counsel's stand that respondent No.1, prior to invocation of the bank guarantee, via letter dated 9.5.2018 had called upon the petitioner to extend the validity period of the subject bank guarantee, which was to expire at the relevant point in time on 18.6.2018.

3. It is not disputed by Mr. Gogna that since then, the petitioner has extended the validity period of the subject bank guarantee till 18.6.2019. 3.1 Therefore, Mr. Gogna takes the stand that if the petitioner were to

take corrective measures and comply with its obligation, he has instructions to convey that respondent No.1 would not seek to encash the subject bank guarantee based on the letter of invocation dated 28.5.2018.

4. In other words, according to Mr. Gogna, respondent No.1 has kept its option open for invoking the subject bank guarantee, albeit, in future. 4.1 Mr. Gogna, though, in particular, emphasizes the point that the petitioner has been remiss in not paying the dues of personnel engaged for the benefit of respondent No.1.

5. Mr. Aly Mirza, who, appears for the petitioner, on the other hand, says that the petitioner will fulfil all its obligation in terms of the contract obtaining between the parties.

6. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, Mr. Gogna, who, as noted above, has taken the stand that respondent No.1 will not press for invocation of the subject bank guarantee as triggered by letter dated 28.5.2018, no directions are called for in the instant petition.

6.1 Thus, as a logical sequitur to what is noted above, the respondents will be bound by the statement of Mr. Gogna.

6.2 Liberty, however, is granted to respondent No.1 to issue a fresh invocation letter, if the circumstances arise, which, impel invocation of the subject bank guarantee.

7. The captioned petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JULY 12, 2018/pmc