Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & ANR.

$~12 to 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Nayar and Mr.

Rishab Kumar, Advs with Mr. Chetan Singh Parihar, Deputy Manager, BHEL versus UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Divyakant Lahoti with Ms.

Amrita Grover and Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Advs for Canara Bank/respondent no. 2 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 353/2018 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Nayar and Mr.

Rishab Kumar, Advs with Mr. Chetan Singh Parihar, Deputy Manager, BHEL versus UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sharminder Kumar, Adv for respondent no. 2.

+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 354/2018 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Nayar and Mr.

Rishab Kumar, Advs with Mr. Chetan Singh Parihar, Deputy Manager, BHEL versus UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sharminder Kumar, Adv for respondent no. 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 27.11.2018 1.

Despite respondent no. 1 having been served, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent. 2.

To be noted, respondent no. 1 is the contesting party while respondent no. 2 in each of these matters is the concerned bank. 3.

This aspect of the matter was, in fact, recorded by me on the previous date as well i.e. 4.10.2018. However, after doing so, one last opportunity was given to respondent no.1. Adverse orders were deferred and the matter was listed for hearing today. 4.

As noted above, there has been no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 1.

5.

Accordingly, interim order dated 06.09.2018 is made absolute with the following caveats:- 5.1 The petitioner will trigger the arbitration agreement on or before 05.12.2018. In case the needful is not done, the interim order dated 06.09.2018 will dissolve automatically. 5.2 The petitioner will keep the bank guarantee alive beyond 31.03.2019, in case it is so directed by the arbitrator so appointed qua the inter se disputes obtaining between the parties or as per the directions of a Competent Court.

6.

The fact that the subject bank guarantee is alive till 31.03.2019 is an aspect which was placed on record based on the statement made by Mr. Rajiv Nayar on the instructions of Mr. Chetan Singh Parihar, Deputy Manager.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J NOVEMBER 27, 2018 c