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 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs M/S.Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt Ltd on 4 September, 2018

Author: M.Sathyanarayanan

Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan

        

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
DATED:04.09.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

O.S.A.No.150 of 2016
and CMP.No.11003 of 2018

M/s.Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Buildings,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.					..  Appellant
Vs

1.M/s.Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt Ltd.
   Registered address:
  28/2B, Saravana Street, T.Nagar,
  Chennai-600 017.

2.ICICI Bank Ltd.,
  1st Floor, 110, NH Road, 
   Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.                        ..  Respondents

Prayer:-	Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent  read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules against the order and decreetal order passed by this Court dated 07.04.2016 made in O.A.No.1314 of 2015.

	For Petitioner	: 	Mr.M.Vijayan
					 for M/s.King and Patridge

	For Respondents	:	Mr.Sathish Parasaran
					Senior Counsel 
					for Mr.R.Parthasarathy

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The 1st respondent in O.A.No.1314 of 2015 is the appellant.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed O.A.No.1314 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents herein their men, agents, or any one acting through or under them from in any manner encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee dated 08.03.2012, procured by the appellant/1st respondent.

3. The learned Judge, vide impugned order dated 07.04.2016, while granting an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent / appellant from invoking or encashing the performance bank guarantee, also directed the applicant / 1st respondent to keep the bank guarantee alive by periodically renewing the same, during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings.

4. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that subsequently Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Balasubramanian, Retired Judge was appointed as Sole Arbitrator and he entered upon reference and passed an award dated 02.05.2018, in and by which, the claimant / 1st respondent, is entitled to a sum of Rs.14,02,575/- towards interest due on delayed payment and also to a sum of Rs.89,64,810.74/- towards shortfall in payment of invoices and further ordered that invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee dated 08.03.2012 by the respondent / appellant herein is not valid and legally enforceable and however, in the light of pendency of the present appeal, has granted liberty to them to approach this Court seeking direction for release of the Performance Bank Guarantee dated 08.03.2012.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that remedy open to the appellant, if any, is to challenge the legality of the award.

6. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that in the light of the observations made in Paragraph No.11, as well as Paragraph No.VII of the Award, this Court may pass appropriate orders for release of the Performance Bank Guarantee dated 08.03.2012.

7. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also.

8. In the light of the said development, nothing remains for further adjudication in this original side appeal and therefore, this Original Side Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. In the light of the Paragraph No.111 and Clause VII Paragraph No.14 (Page No.64 of the Award), there shall be an interim direction directing the 2nd respondent to release the Performance Bank Guarantee dated 08.03.2012 in favour of the 1st respondent / claimant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

[M.S.N., J.,]            [N.S.S., J]
 							
                                                               	   04.09.2018 



Internet	:	Yes

sk











M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,

AND

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

sk


















O.S.A.No.150 of 2016
















04.09.2018