Delhi High Court - Orders
Garg Builders Thr. Mohinder Pal Garg vs Hindustan Prefab Ltd on 16 June, 2021
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~52 to 54 (Original side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 185/2021 & IAs 7533-34-35/2021
GARG BUILDERS THR. MOHINDER PAL GARG..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Rahul Malhotra, Adv.
versus
HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Varun, Adv.
(53) O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 186/2021 & IAs 7536-37-38/2021
GARG BUILDERS THR. MOHINDER PAL GARG..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Rahul Malhotra, Adv.
versus
HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Varun, Adv.
(54) O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 187/2021 & IAs 7539-40/2021
GARG BUILDERS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Rahul Malhotra, Adv.
versus
HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Varun, Adv. for R-1
Mr.Ateev Mathur, Mr.Amol Sharma,
Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:17.06.2021
ORDER
% 16.06.2021
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. Issue notice.
3. Notice is accepted by Mr.Varun, Adv. on behalf of the respondent - Hindustan Prefab Ltd. in all the petitions and by Mr.Ateev Mathur, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in OMP(I)(COMM) 187/2021 respectively.
4. Let replies be filed within ten days. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the invocation letter is not in terms of the bank guarantees. He further submits that as the bank guarantees are sought to be invoked only on the ground that they were not renewed, the petitioner undertakes to renew the bank guarantees in question albeit without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that apart from the letter of invocation dated 14.06.2021 which has been placed on record by the petitioner along with the present petitions, the respondent has also invoked the bank guarantees in question on other grounds and by separate letters which have not been placed on record by the petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsels.
8. As far as the invocation in question by the letter dated 14.06.2021 is concerned, the same prima facie does not appear to be in terms of the bank guarantees which requires the respondent to also state that 'the amount claimed is required to meet the recoveries dues or likely to be due from the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:17.06.2021 contractor'.
9. In view of the above, the invocation based on the letter dated 14.06.2021 of the respondent shall not be given effect to if not already given effect as on 8.10 p.m. today when this order is being passed, till the next date of hearing, subject to the condition that the petitioner renews the bank guarantees in question within a week from today without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
10. It is made clear that this Court has only considered and passed the order on the basis of the invocation letter dated 14.06.2021.
11. List on 5th July, 2021 before the Roster Bench.
(NAVIN CHAWLA) VACATION JUDGE JUNE 16, 2021 RN/U. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:17.06.2021