Delhi High Court - Orders
Manjeet Plastic Industries & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2010/2025
MANJEET PLASTIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv with
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr.
Shahank Khurana and Mr. Chaitanya
Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly and Ms. Shreya
Jetly Advs for UoI.
Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Suman Kukrety, Advs for NSIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 16.09.2025 CM APPL. 46948/2025 (Clarification)
1. The present application has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:
"(a) Pass directions/clarify the order dated 06.05.2025, whereby this Hon'ble Court passed "an order in the nature of status quo ante" in respect of the Bank Guarantee, so that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court could be complied in letter and spirit;
(b) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice"
2. By way of the present application the applicant/respondent seeks clarification in respect of the directions contained in para 32 of the judgment dated 06.05.2025.
3. Mr. Sanat Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent states that while disposing of W.P.(C) 2010/2025 and W.P.(C) 2010/2025 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 21:40:58 having regard to the observations made therein, in para 32 of the judgment dated 06.05.2025, this Court had directed that an order in the nature of status quo ante needs to be passed to restore fair play and transparency in action. He states that this observation was predicated on the punitive action of forfeiture of the Bank Guarantee taken by the applicant/respondent without issuance of a Show Cause Notice. He submits that in pursuance to the directions contained in para 32 the applicant/respondent refunded the amount of the Bank Guarantee which was forfeited.
4. However, a piquant situation has arisen in that, though this Court in para 32 has directed status quo ante and simultaneously directed refund of forfeited amount of Bank Guarantee, and also permitted applicant/respondent to issue a Show Cause Notice, yet has not directed the non-applicant/petitioner to re-deposit/re-furnish the Bank Guarantee. He submits that in the absence of furnishing of Bank Guarantee by the non- applicant/petitioner, the applicant/respondent has not been able to issue a Show Cause Notice asking non-applicant/petitioner as to why the Bank Guarantee ought not to be forfeited. He also states that in the absence of an actual Bank Guarantee which is live, valid and available with the applicant/respondent, the action contemplated under the intended Show Cause Notice will not be fulfilled.
5. He states that this Court may allow the application, directing the non-applicant/petitioner to re-deposit/re-furnish the Bank Guarantee in a stipulated time so as to enable applicant/respondent to comply with the directions contained in para 32 of the judgment dated 06.05.2025.
6. We have heard Mr. Sanat Kumar, learned senior counsel for the applicant/respondent and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the non-applicant/petitioner.
7. The observations and directions in the para 32 of the judgment dated W.P.(C) 2010/2025 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 21:40:58 06.05.2025 were passed on a culmination of the finding that applicant/respondent had violated the principles of Natural Justice by forfeiting the amount of Bank Guarantee without as much as issuing the Show Cause Notice. The direction to refund the forfeited amount of Bank Guarantee was predicated on such fundamental lapse of principles of Natural Justice. The observation regarding applicability of a situation akin to status quo ante was made under compelling circumstances of initiation of an action by applicant/respondent not contemplated in law. Resultantly, the direction for refund of forfeited Bank Guarantee.
8. The non-issuance of a direction to further ask the non- applicant/petitioner to re-furnish or re-deposit the Bank Guarantee was essentially a conscious decision. This is for the reason that the applicant/respondent being the tender issuing authority has all the means and wherewithal to take appropriate action pursuant to the issuance of Show Cause Notice and other action which may be contemplated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, on the non- compliance by the non-applicant/petitioner, to the final decision which might be taken by the competent authority of the applicant/respondent. That being so, there is no reason compelling us to give any further clarification to the observations and directions contained in para 32 of the judgment dated 06.05.2025, particularly in the manner in which the applicant/respondent is contemplating.
9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the present application, which is hereby dismissed.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025/rl W.P.(C) 2010/2025 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 21:40:58