Scorpio Engineering Private Limited v. Indian Power Corporation (Haldia) Limited & ORS.
$~17 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 139/2017 SCORPIO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr Dinesh Agnani, Senior Advocate with Mr Manu Seshadri, Mr Arjun Syal, Ms Sahiba Ahluwalia and Mr Ishan BIsht, Advocates.
versus INDIAN POWER CORPORATION (HALDIA) LIMITED & ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr Firasat Ali, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R
% 28.03.2017 IA No.3932/2017 1.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 139/2017 2.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia praying as under: "a) restrain the Respondent No. 1 and 2 from enchasing the Security Cum Performance Bank Guarantees bearing No. 0201/LG/11/2014 amounting to Rs.
2,15,00,000/- and bearing No.
0201/LG/06/2014 amounting to Rs. 22,50,000/- which were submitted by the Petitioner through the Respondent No. 3 Bank in favour of the Respondent No. 1 acting through Respondent No. 2 pending adjudication of the present Petition;
b) restrain the Respondent No. 1 and 2 from enchasing the Advance Bank Guarantees bearing No.
0201/LG/05/2014 amounting to Rs.
45,00,000/-, bearing No. 0201/LG/07/2014 amounting to Rs.
1,00,00,000/-, bearing No.
0201/LG/08/2014 amounting to Rs.
1,00,00,000/-, bearing No.
0201/LG/09/2014 amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and bearing No. 0201/LG/10/2014 amounting to Rs.
1,19,00,000/- which were submitted by the Petitioner through the Respondent No. 3 Bank in favour of the Respondent No. 1 acting through Respondent No. 2 pending adjudication of the present Petition." 3.
At the outset, Mr Dinesh Agnani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner apprehends that its bank guarantees may be unjustifiably invoked, however, the petitioner has no confirmed information that the respondents are intending to invoke the bank guarantee. He, accordingly, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh. He also requests that the bank guarantees in question not be encashed without prior notice of three working days, in order to enable the petitioner to approach this Court, if required. It is, accordingly, so ordered.
4.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn albeit with the aforesaid directions.
5.
Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 28, 2017 MK