Delhi High Court
Geps Projects vs Indiabulls Estate Limited on 24 July, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.07.2025
+ FAO (COMM) 191/2025
GEPS PROJECTS
.....Appellant
Through: Mr.Akshay Srivastava and
Mr.Suryansh Vashisth, Advs.
versus
INDIABULLS ESTATE LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 44309/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO (COMM) 191/2025 & CM APPL. 44308/2025
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the
Order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned District Judge,
Commercial Court-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the, 'Trial Court') in OMP (I) COMM 01/2025, titled
GEPS Projects v. Indiabulls Estate Limited, whereby the application
filed by the appellant herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.
3. The appellant had filed the said application seeking an interim
injunction against the respondent, restraining it from encashing the
bank guarantee that had been submitted by the appellant to the
respondent in terms of the Work Orders bearing Nos. 3210100078 and
3228105495.
4. The learned District Judge, however, placing reliance on the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v.
Heavy Engineering Corporation. Ltd., (2020) 13 SCC 574; Vinitec
Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd., (2008) 1 SCC 544,
and of this Court in CRSC Research and Design Institute Group Co.
Ltd. v. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corpn. of India Ltd., 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 1526, held that a bank guarantee being a separate
contract, its invocation can be injuncted only on the limited grounds of
fraud of an egregious nature, irretrievable injustice resulting to the
parties, or special equities, and that no such case was made out in the
present case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
invocation of the bank guarantee was not in terms of Clause 18 (c) of
the Work Order dated 09.10.2017, inasmuch as the bank guarantee
could have been invoked only to the extent of the loss incurred by the
respondent.
6. We are unable to accept the above submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant.
7. The bank guarantee was unconditional in nature and, therefore,
could be invoked on its own terms. The underlying contract, that is,
the Work Order, being separate, the terms thereof would not override
the unconditional nature of the bank guarantee.
8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same,
along with the pending application, is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 24, 2025/sg/DG
