Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Mbl Infrastructure Limited vs National Highways Authority Of India on 12 June, 2009

Author: Indira Banerjee

Bench: Indira Banerjee

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                           GA No. 1456 of 2009
                             AP No.239 of 2008
                        MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
                                  Versus
                   NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                                   With
                            GA No.1394 of 2009
                            AP No.239 of 2008
                   NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                                   -Vs-
                        MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED




   BEFORE:
   The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
   Date : 12th June, 2009.


                          The    Court:    In   the        application     being

G.A. No. 1394 of 2009,           the petitioner has sought an order

directing   MBL    Infrastructure     Limited         to    extend   the    bank

guarantee furnished by MBL Infrastructure Ltd in favour of

National Highways Authority of India until disposal of the

arbitration proceedings.

            In    an   application   for     interim        relief   being   AP

No.239 of 2008 filed by MBL Infrastructure Limited, Her

Ladyship the Hon'ble Justice Patherya passed an order dated

May 15, 2008, the relevant part whereof is extracted herein

below for convenience:

                            "Counsel for NHAI submits that in
                   such contract value is of importance.
                   Clause   53    empowers      the    respondent     to
2

terminate the contract for any of the fundamental breaches as stated under clause 53.2 of the said agreement. Therefore, under clause 53.2 (h) and 53.2 ( i ) the letter dated 31st December 2007 has been issued. There is no scope to pass any interim order as the petitioner has filed the instant application after a delay of five months. Therefore, there is no urgency.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties and this order will not debar the parties from relying on the letter dated 31st December 2007. The parties will be free to agitate their claims and counter-claims before the learned Arbitrator."

The aforesaid application was mentioned on April 17, 2009 by Mr. Debangsu Basak on behalf of National Highways Authority of India and directions were sought for renewal of the bank guarantee referred to above which had expired in January 2009.

This Court observed that Her Ladyship had passed an order of status quo which meant that 3 things were to remain as they were on the date of the order. The bank guarantees that were alive as on the date of the order of status quo should have been kept alive and not allowed to expire. However, this Court declined to pass an order in the absence of a formal application since the bank guarantee had apparently expired in January 2009.

An application being GA No.1394 of 2009 has now been brought out praying for orders directing the MBL Infrastructure Limited to extend the bank guarantee and/or other reliefs. An application being GA No.1456 of 2009 has been brought by MBL Infrastructure Limited for recalling and/or setting aside of the order dated April 17, 2009 passed by this Bench.

By the aforesaid order, this Court only gave liberty to Mr. Basak's client to bring out a formal application. The observations were obviously prima facie observations of an interim nature which could have no bearing on further/final reliefs in the proceedings.

Even otherwise this application is totally misconceived in law, the order having been passed after hearing the parties. There are no grounds 4 for recalling an order passed on the basis of the submissions made by the respective parties.

The order is not required to be recalled. The application being GA No.1456 of 2009 is disposed of.

Extensive arguments were, however, made in relation to the order of status quo dated May 15, 2008. The application of Mr. Basak is really in the nature of an application for clarification of the order dated May 15, 2008 passed by Her Ladyship the Hon'ble Justice Patherya. The application being GA No.1394 of 2009 is thus released from my list with liberty to apply for appropriate assignment.

All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(INDIRA BANERJEE, J.) cs.

5