Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S.Srivalli Shipping And Transport ... vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, on 31 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.3921 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in non-returning the Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017, totalling to worth Rs.11,76,00,000/- (Rupees eleven crores seventy six lakhs only) out of the working capital limits availing from the Respondent No.2, i.e. UNION BANK OF INDIA, in respect of contract No. RINL/MKTG/ITD/VPT/15-16/01/327DTD 03.12.2015 & RINL /MKTG / ITD/GPL/15-16/01/341 DTD 17.12.2015 even though the said contracts were closed and there was no liability or whatsoever between the petitioner and 1st respondent as highly objectionable, untenable, arbitrary, unilateral, motivated, unconstitutional, against the law and as well as Principles of Natural Justice and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to not to extend the said Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No. 32890IGL0026017, dated 24-11-2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017 and return to the petitioner, and pass such other or further orders, as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice "
The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that respondent No.1 floated open tender, dated 18.05.2012 for the work of transportation, handling, stevedoring, etc. of pig iron and steel for export sales of its material from Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) and / Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL). Pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted bids in two parts, i.e., Techno-Commercial (Part-1) and Price Bid (part-2). Having satisfied with the rates quoted by the petitioner, after negotiations the contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner vide Letter of Intent, dated 26.12.2012 and later culminated into the Agreement, dated 04.01.2013. The period of the said contract was initially for two MSM,J WP_3921_2021 2 years from 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2014 extendable by one more year under the agreement. Respondent No.1 by its letter dated 27.11.2014 sought consent for extending the contract with different stipulations informing that rates applicable during the extended period would be current rates or the rates determined in the fresh tender whichever is lower. Though initially the petitioner did not care for such condition, however, taking into consideration of longstanding relationship with the respondent, the petitioner prevailed upon the request of respondent No.1 and issued letter dated 12.12.2014 duly intimating that the same was under high risk, however to maintain good and cordial relationship, accepted the same and as on the date of issuing the said letter more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) was due apart from price escalation, SMA, ASMA retrenchment benefit to the contract labour, etc., to the petitioner.
To accept the said extension term/condition on instigation and pressure of respondent No.1, petitioner issued letter dated 12.12.2014 even though the same was contrary to the terms of the agreement. The period extended is for 6 months from 26.12.2014 to 25.06.2015, however, no fresh tender was called for though initial period of 6 months has elapsed. Even without calling for tenders when the respondent started issuing number of DO's for larger quantities than the agreed under original contract period, anticipating heavy loss, the petitioner requested the respondent in several meetings to pre-close the contract for the balance of the extended period as it was not feasible for the petitioner. The respondent organisation for finalizing the new tender within a short time and during the gap, requested the petitioner to extend MSM,J WP_3921_2021 3 the contract period for another 6 months from 25.06.2015 to 25.12.2015 promising that no new stipulations would be imposed in the new tender due to the delay and no liability would be fastened with retrospective date, respondent No.1 issued fresh tender on 25.08.2015 altogether with new stipulations for both Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Gangavaram Port Trust. The petitioner participated in the said tender and after deliberations and specific understanding that respondent No.1 had no right to claim any amount from the petitioner with regard to difference of amounts agreed and accordingly the petitioner issued Letter of Intent to Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 03.12.2015 and conveyed consent by letter dated 09.12.2015.
Since no Letter of Intent was issued as far as payments due in respect of the extended period, the petitioner submitted bills for October 2015, however against the understanding arrived, the same were returned by respondent No.1 by letter dated 08.12.2015 with direction to submit as per the new rates as agreed under fresh tender. Even the bills for September 2015 onwards were partly released by applying new rates. When unilaterally taken decision by respondent No.1 in arranging payments for pending bills, the petitioner made several requests between November and December 2015 to release amount towards pending bills and respondent No.1 did not settle the same on one pretext or the other. As the amount due is accumulating and mounting pressure on the financial constrains, the petitioner addressed the letter dated 21.12.2015 demanding to arrange payment of pending bills, but instead of heading to the request made by the petitioner, the respondent Company by its letters dated 22.12.2015 made counter MSM,J WP_3921_2021 4 demand for Rs.10,31,60,669-52ps alleging as the same was differential amount of the rates agreed under the earlier contract and fresh contract by applying fresh rates under the new contract for the for the period from 03.12.2015 to 02.12.2018. The said demand was illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract, and more particularly under the understanding during the negotiations, the petitioner addressed another letter dated 26.12.2015 requesting the respondent Company to settle the matter amicably failing which to invoke the arbitration clause, since the respondent did not respond positively and demanded for Rs.14,45,91,076-24 ps., and requested for invocation of the arbitration clause. The actual bills due amount to the petitioner was Rs.12,18,22,424-02 ps. which includes Service Tax also.
As there were disputes and respondent No.1 failed to pay the amount, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause and Hon'ble Justice D. Appa Rao (Retired) Judge of High Court of A.P., was appointed as Arbitrator. After considering the contentions of both the parties, the Arbitrator passed an Award, awarding a sum of Rs.12,18,22,424-02 ps, rounded off to Rs.12,18,22,000/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from 10.03.2016 and costs till the date of realization which includes arbitration fee paid by the petitioner and also further directed to return the Bank Guarantee along with amount as per Award, dated 20.05.2017.
The outstanding dues during the extended period and liabilities between the petitioner Company and respondent No.1 were settled by Award dated 20.05.2017 and any pending dues or the transactions are the subject matter of Award dated 20.05.2017 passed by the Justice D.Appa Rao (Retired) Judge and Arbitrator.
MSM,J WP_3921_2021 5 Though Award is passed quantifying the amounts due and settled the disputes between the parties legally with evidence, respondent No.1 herein having been aggrieved by under Award dated 20.05.2017 filed CAOP No.24/2017 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam under section-34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to set aside the said Order. The Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam after having been considered in detail of all the contentions raised, dismissed the said petition filed by respondent No.1 by its Order dated 30.09.2019.
Though there are concurrent findings with regard to the disputes by the Arbitrator and also the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam, the respondent herein preferred an Appeal in COM. CA.A. No.6/ 2020 before the Court and no orders were passed by the Court and the same is pending adjudication.
While the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Arbitrator and also Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam, since the petitioner facing with financial constraints and also the pressure from the banks since the Bank Guarantees have been locked-up, requested the respondent to release the amount due in respect of new Contract period from 03.12.2015 to 02.12.2018 to avoid commercial constraints and to ease their financial transactions. On deliberations, the respondent company agreed to release fund subject to providing Bank Guarantees for the amount being claimed in counter claim and accordingly the petitioner furnished MSM,J WP_3921_2021 6 Bank Guarantees to the worth of Rs.11,76,00,000/- (Rupees eleven crores seventy six lakhs only) out of the working capital limits availing from respondent No.2 Bank. Pursuant to furnishing Bank Guarantees worth of Rs.11,76,00,000/- for the new Contract period, the Bills were paid regularly. Subsequently, both the award and also the sum due was confirmed in CAOP No. 24/2017 on the file Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam.
As on the commencement of new contract as per Letter of Intent No. RINL/Mktg/ITD/VPT/15-16/01/327, dated 03.12.2015 and RINL/Mktg/ITD/GPL/15-16/01/341, dated 17.12.2015, the petitioner submitted its bills as per the new rates as agreed under the said contract. Though there was no dispute with regard to payment of bills at new rates under the said contract from 03.12.2015, under the guise of the counter claim of deduction during the extended period of the earlier contract between 25.12.2014 to 24.12.2015, respondent No.1 started withholding the payment to adjust the said amount towards their unilateral counter claim even though it was pending adjudication before the Arbitrator as well as the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam.
There were deliberations and also negotiations with regard to settlement of the issues amicably and since the petitioner is facing hardship for not releasing the amount when requested respondent No.1 not to withhold any amount as the award also rejected the counter claim of respondent No.1, respondent No.1 authorities under the guise that an Appeal in C.A.O.P. No.24 of 2017 was pending on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of MSM,J WP_3921_2021 7 Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam, directed to furnish the Bank Guarantees to release the amount covered by the new contract in addition to the Bank Guarantees already furnished to the new contract. Accordingly, petitioner furnished Bank Guarantee No. 32890IGL0026017 dated 24.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.8,50,00,000/- and another Bank Guarantee No.32890IGL0027217 dated 13-12-2017 for Rs.3,26,00,000/- under Bank Guarantee. Apart from the said Bank Guarantees of Rs.11,76,00,000/- (Rupees eleven crores seventy six lakhs) covered by the said two Bank Guarantees, the petitoner also furnished Bank Guarantee for Rs.4,03,00,000/- under Bank Guarantee No.32890IGL0067715 dated 08.12.2015 and Bank Guarantee No.32890IGL0070415 dated 28.12.2015.
It is further submitted that the new contract covered by Letter of Intent No. RINL/Mktg/ITD/VPT/15-16/01/327, dated 03.12.2015 and RINL/Mktg/ITD/GPL/15-16/01/341, dated 17.12.2015 is concluded and the said contract was also terminated by December 2018. Pursuant to the conclusion of agreement, the said contract was closed, the entire bills were settled and also the Bank Guarantees of Rs.4,03,00,000/- covered by the Bank Guarantee Nos. 32890IGL0067715 dated 08.12.2015 and Bank Guarantee No 32890IGL0070415 dated 28.12.2015 was revoked and discharged on closing of said agreement. However, remaining two Bank Guarantees covered by the same new contract for a sum of Rs.8,50,00,000/- and Rs.3,26,00,000/- were retained by respondent No.1 high handedly and without any manner of right or having no claim over or alleged counter claim with regard to the contract period, which culminated into finality in the Award passed MSM,J WP_3921_2021 8 by the Arbitrator and also Order dated 30.09.2019 in C.A.O.P. No.24/ 2017 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam.
Finally, it is contended that the Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No. 32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017 are offered in relating to the new contract No. RINL/MKTG/ITD/VPT/15-16/01/327 dated 03.12.2015 and RINL/MKTG/ITD/GPL/15-16/01/341 dated 17.12.2015 and the same were not subject matter of either arbitration Award or the subject matter of C.A.O.P. No.24/2017 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam. The retention and continuation of the Bank Guarantees even after closing of the said subsequent contract and allowing the petitioner to incur additional burden of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) per year since 2017 is highly arbitrary, unconstitutional, untenable, against the law, as well as Principles of Natural Justice. When the Award rejecting the claim and which was confirmed in C.A.O.P.No.24/2017 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam, and more so, when the subsequent contract was closed on completion of the contract, respondent No.1 ought to have released the two Bank Guarantees also along with Bank Guarantee of Rs.4,03,00,000/-, however, respondent No.1 deliberately continuing to allow the said Bank Guarantees even without liability in spite of their counter claim got rejected by the Arbitrator and also Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, any further MSM,J WP_3921_2021 9 extension of the Bank Guarantees allowing the petitioner to suffer for further loss and its renewal is unwarranted, illegal against the law, and the action of the first respondent is highly objectionable, untenable, arbitrary, unilateral and without any basis or liability, against the law and as well as Principles of Natural Justice, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
Respondent No.1 filed counter denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the writ petition is not at all maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution since it is a commercial transaction and the subject matter of the Writ Petition is bank guarantee issued by the contactor to the company, the realization of which cannot be interdicted by the courts in view of the settled proposition of law and repeated decisions of the Apex Court. The courts should be very hesitant to interfere or interdict in the realization of the bank grantees in a commercial transaction. As such, the reliefs, if at all the petitioner feels to be entitled, his remedy is elsewhere but not by way of this Writ petition.
It is further contended that there is no dispute that there was a contract under the tender notification dated 18.05.2012 for transportation, handling and stevedoring etc. of pig iron and steel for export sales from Vishakhapatnam Port Trust or Gangavaram Port Limited and that the petitioner became the successful bidder in it and was awarded the same. It is also not in dispute that the initial agreement period 2 years and extendable upto 1 more year. Accordingly, the contract was executed by the Writ petitioner for the initial period of 2 years. It is also not in dispute that initially the contract was extended up to 6 more months from 26.12.2014 to 25.06.2015 on the clear and written consent of the Writ MSM,J WP_3921_2021 10 petitioner that it would claim the rates for this particular period at the existing rates under the earlier contract or as per the rates that would be confirmed by a fresh tender notification whichever is lower. This undertaking to claim at such rate is unequivocal, undisputed and is in writing.
After the expiry of the initial period of 6 months, again, on the same terms and conditions as stated above, it was extended for another six months. Thus, the extended-period is for one year from 26.12.2014 to 25.12.2015. During this period, the Writ petitioner had executed the works. For this period, the rates he should claim for the work done are as per the above said understanding that either on the existing rates or for the new rates that were concluded in the new contract whichever is lower. It is coincidence that the petitioner itself became the lowest tenderer for the new contract commencing from 3.12.2015 to 2.12.2018 for a period of 3 years. It so happened that in the new contract the agreed rates were lower than the rates stipulated in the earlier contract that was already executed by the Writ petitioner. In view of the above stated unequivocal undertaking of the Writ petitioner to claim the rates for this extended period of 1 year is as per the new rates that were arrived at. Thus, the writ petitioner has to claim the bills for this extended period of one year at the rates that were confirmed under the new contract.
As per the fresh tender proceedings that floated under the notification dated 25.08.2015, the Writ petitioner has to claim the rates for the extended period of one year. For this one year period of extension, the petitioner was already paid to certain extent in accordance with the earlier rates as per the earlier contract. In MSM,J WP_3921_2021 11 view of its undertaking as stated above, it has to refund the excess money paid to it for the differential period. As stated above, for this one year extended period, certain payments were already made as per the rates for the earlier contract which are liable to be refunded by the petitioner. At the same time, for the remaining period of one year, it is not entitled for the earlier rates of contract but as per the new rates of the contract as stated above. As such, this respondent RINL became entitled to claim the refund of the excess amounts partially paid for this one year period of extension and not to pay that differential amount for remaining unpaid amount part of the one year. Thus, for this one year period, it was found that an amount of Rs.14.45 Crores (12.67 Crores+1.78 Crores towards Service Tax) was recoverable from the Writ petitioner by this Respondent as per the terms of the extension. In order to recover this amount from the Writ petitioner, this respondent started withholding 50% of the running accounting bill amounts from the new contract.
The writ petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and accordingly, Justice D.Apparao had been appointed as Sole arbitrator to enter into reference of the dispute. Accordingly, this Respondent also laid a counter claim before the said arbitrator. After hearing both the parties and after conducting the arbitration proceedings, ultimately the learned arbitrator passed an award rejecting the counter claim and allowing the claim of the Writ petitioner to a tune of 12.18 Crores together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from 10.03.2016.
It is admitted that against the arbitration award, this Respondent had filed AOP No. 623 of 2017 and also sought for the MSM,J WP_3921_2021 12 stay of execution of the award in the I.A. No.648 of 2017 before the Special Court for Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Vishakapatnam. A Stay was granted against the execution of the award by the said Commercial Court. The Writ petitioner challenged the same in CRP No. 7219 of the 2017 before the Hon'ble court. The Division Bench of this Court had remanded the said I.A. 648 of 2017 for fresh consideration by the District Judge directing him to dispose of the petition with in a period of 3 months. The learned District Judge disposed off the I.A. 648 of 2017 in CAOP NO. 24/2017 vide the orders dated 9.8.2018 directing this respondent to furnish security in the form of the bank guarantee to the extent of amount directed to be paid in the award and accordingly, this respondent had furnished Bank Guarantee for Rs. 17,75,70,000/-
Before the District Judge/Commercial Court Visakhapatnam, the petitioner had requested this Respondent for release of the payment of Rs. 7.57 Crores which was held up from the Running Account bills of the new contract. After due deliberation and on the proposal of the Petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee to a tune of Rs.11.76 Crores, the amounts were released to the Petitioner. These Bank Guarantees which were furnished by the Petitioner for the release of the amounts covered by the differential amounts for the extended period are the subject matter of this Writ Petition. Ultimately the CAOP filed by this Respondent before the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam was dismissed holding that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the courts are not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and partly modified the award to the extent of costs only.
MSM,J WP_3921_2021 13 The learned Arbitrator and the learned judge of the Commercial Court did not appreciate the crucial question that the Writ Petitioner had undertaken to claim the rates of the Contract for extended period of one year on the basis of the rates arrived at in the new contract. When there is such an undertaking in black and white, the Arbitrator of the Commercial Court cannot interdict in such a situation holing differently ignoring the basic principles of the Indian Evidence Act enunciated under Section 91 and 92 wherein no Oral Evidence can be permitted contrary to the recitals of a Written and Admitted Document. Thus, the learned arbitrator as well as the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the claims of this respondent and against the same, this respondent had filed COMCA No. 6 of 2020 before this Court. In view of the pendency of the dispute before this Court pertaining to the above said Bank Guarantees, the Writ Petitioner, now, cannot seek the present reliefs and cannot contend that the non return of the Bank Guarantee for the said amount is illegal. Since the lis pertaining to the amount that could be claimed towards the differential amount for the extended period of contract is before this Court and in case, this respondent is successful in the COMCA, it would be entitled for the amount covered by the Bank Guarantees which are the subject matter of this Writ Petition. As such, the Petitioner is bound to keep the Bank Guarantees alive till the disposal of the COMCA before this Court and can never claim that the said Bank Guarantees have got to be returned.
It is further contended that vide Orders dated 18.02.2021, this Court passed an Interim Order directing this respondent not to invoke the Bank Guarantees and at the same time directed the MSM,J WP_3921_2021 14 petitioner to renew the Bank Guarantees from time to time during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Thus, this Respondent did not realize the Bank Guarantees and the Petitioner is bound to renew the Bank Guarantees and cannot seek the return of the said Bank Guarantees, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
Admittedly, agreements were entered for the work stated in the earlier paragraphs. As the amount is due to the petitioner, he was called upon to issue Bank Guarantee for release of bills relating to Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017, (Total Rs.11,76,00,000/-). In fact the contention of the petitioner is that the period covered by letter of intent was settled and it was not the subject matter of any of the pending cases including CAOP No.24/2017 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam. As per Letter of Intent dated No. RINL/Mktg/ITD/VPT/15-16/01/327, dated 03.12.2015 and RINL/Mktg/ITD/GPL/15-16/01/341, dated 17.12.2015, the petitioner submitted its bills as per the applicable rates as agreed under the said contract. The bills for the initial contract period i.e. from 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2014 and extended period of contract i.e. from 26.12.2014 to 25.12.2015 were paid and no dispute is pending before any Court. The contention of the respondent is that MSM,J WP_3921_2021 15 for the subsequent period, there is a dispute, thereby respondent No.1 is entitled to retain Bank Guarantees exercising lien over the same. In fact, respondent No.1 has no lien over the Bank Guarantees. Bank guarantees were furnished as security for payment of bills due under the agreement dated 04.01.2013. As on date, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to letter of intent dated 26.12.2012, which culminated into agreement dated 04.01.2013. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to exercise lien over the Bank Guarantees as they are obtained for the limited purpose as mentioned in the Bank Guarantees referred above. Even if there is any dispute for the subsequent period for payment of bills for the extended period under the agreement, respondent No.1 is not entitled to retain the bank guarantees furnished for the works under the contract. Hence, retention of Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017, totalling to worth Rs.11,76,00,000/- is without any purpose and not entitled to invoke Bank Guarantee as there was no dispute with regard to performance of the contract and payment of bills for the contract dated 03.12.2015 and 17.12.2015. However, the Bank Guarantees were furnished for the contracts dated 03.12.2015 and 17.12.2015, the amount due was paid, but the appeal filed by the respondent is pending. Mere pendency of appeal without any interim order, the respondent cannot retain the Bank Guarantees as security for the order likely to be passed by the Court. When once the performance of contract is completed and bills were paid, respondent No.1 is bound to return those Bank Guarantees and MSM,J WP_3921_2021 16 any inaction on the part of respondent No.1 would clearly amount to violation of their obligation to return the Bank Guarantees referred above furnished as security for the amount paid under the bills covered by the agreement, and for recovery of the same in case the respondent succeeds in the appeal pending before the Court.
During hearing, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 admitted that the Bank Guarantees were furnished as security for bill amount paid under the contract dated 03.12.2015 and 17.12.2015. Even assuming for a moment, that the Bank Guarantees were furnished as performance guaranty, when the performance was over, respondent No.1 is under obligation to return those bank guarantees under due acknowledgment.
Therefore, action of respondent No.1 in retaining Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017, totalling to worth Rs.11,76,00,000/- is illegal and arbitrary since there is no dispute for the transactions covered by letter of intent dated 26.12.2012, which culminated into agreement dated 04.01.2013 before any Court, on the other hand, performance was completed, the bill amount was paid. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in retaining Bank Guarantees is declared as illegal and arbitrary.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action of respondent No.1 in non-returning the Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017, totalling to worth MSM,J WP_3921_2021 17 Rs.11,76,00,000/- (Rupees eleven crores seventy six lakhs only) as illegal and arbitrary, consequentially respondent No.2 is directed not to extend the said Bank Guarantee for Rs.8,50,00,000/- bearing No. 32890IGL0026017, dated 24.11.2017 and Bank Guarantee for Rs.3,26,00,000/- bearing No.32890IGL0027217, dated 13.12.2017, consequently, respondent No.1 is directed to return the same to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
This order will not preclude the respondent to recover the amount under any order/decree, if any, likely to be passed against the petitioner.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 31.03.2022 Ksp