Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Schindler India Private Limited vs Parnika Commercial And Estates Private ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 165/2025
M/S SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner
Through:
versus
PARNIKA COMMERCIAL AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED
& ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. C. Singhal & Ms. Muskan Gupta,
Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 07.05.2025
1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from invoking two Bank Guarantees (ABG and PBG), totalling to Rs.1,14,40,676/- issued by respondent no. 2 bank on 29.08.2023, valid up to 30.06.2025 and 30.12.2025.
2. The facts are that the respondent no. 1 awarded a Work Order dated 25.07.2023 bearing no. PCEPPL/SITE/SAFDARJUNG/WO/2023-24/149 to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner had to place 16 lifts and 04 escalators in the project being undertaken by M/s IRCON International Limited involving the redevelopment of a) the Safdarjung Railway Station, and b) an Office Building near Moti Bagh, New Delhi.
3. The case of the petitioner is that as far as the railway station is concerned, it has supplied 03 lifts and 01 escalator and the 13 lifts and 03 escalators meant for the office building have not been supplied.
4. Consequently, the respondent no.1 on 24.12.2024, 29.01.2025 and 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 29/06/2025 at 20:59:48 06.03.2025 issued termination notice(s) to the petitioner, terminating the Work Order dated 25.07.2023.
5. The petitioner, on 31.03.2025 replied to the notice issued by respondent no. 1 on 06.03.2025, stating that, insofar as the railway station is concerned, 03 lifts and 01 escalator have already been supplied. However, with respect to the office building, the said building is not complete and the lift shafts are not ready. Hence, the petitioner could not supply the balance lifts and escalators.
6. It is stated that the petitioner is always ready and willing to supply the same.
7. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 on 20.04.2025 replied to the letter dated 31.03.2025 issued by the petitioner.
8. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.1 on advance notice and states that the Bank Guarantees are un-conditional, and merely on demand of respondent no.1, the same are required to be encashed.
9. He further states that the 03 lifts and 01 escalator that have been supplied by the petitioner at the railway station have not been even commissioned, despite it being the petitioner's obligation.
10. Insofar as the station is concerned, the 03 lifts and 01 escalator has already been provided, however, the same has not been commissioned as the requisite clearances have not been supplied. As regards, the office building is concerned, the photographs annexed with the petition clearly indicate that the same is still under construction and not yet complete. Hence, it may not be possible for the petitioner to supply and install the remaining lifts and escalators.
11. I am of the view that the matter needs consideration.
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 29/06/2025 at 20:59:48
12. Issue notice. Mr. Singhal accepts notice, seeks and is granted two weeks to file a reply.
13. As per the averments of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has not completed the office building or made it ready for the installation of lifts and escalators.
14. Further, the advance bank guarantee was furnished with respect to the lifts and escalators to be supplied by the petitioner. The advance amount has been utilized and the petitioner has already supplied 03 lifts and 01 escalator. As regards, the PBG is concerned, the respondent no. 1 has attributed the delay of the completion of Work Order on the petitioner, however, prima facie, I am of the view that a ready site was essential for the completion of the work order and in the absence of a complete site, the supply and installation of the remaining lifts and escalators could not have been done.
15. The fact whether the petitioner was in violation of its obligations under the Work Order dated 25.07.2023, will be adjudicated once the respondent no. 1 files its reply.
16. I am satisfied that the petitioner has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioner. The invocation of bank guarantee(s), would be causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.
17. For the said reasons, the two Bank Guarantees (ABG and PBG), totalling to Rs.1,14,40,676/- issued by respondent no. 2 bank on 29.08.2023, valid up to 30.06.2025 and 30.12.2025 shall not be encashed till the next date of hearing.
18. List on 23.05.2025 at 3:30 pm. 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 29/06/2025 at 20:59:48
19. The respondent no.1 shall also inform the respondent no. 2 bank about the order passed today.
JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 7, 2025/pk Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 29/06/2025 at 20:59:48