Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chennai Metro Rail Limited ... vs M/S Transtonnelstroy Afcons (Jv) on 13 May, 2022
Bench: B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.16 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8553/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2021
in CMA No. 1773/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Madras)
CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.69820/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 13-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. B. Kishor, Adv.
Mr. Jaskaran Singh Bhatia, Adv.
Ms. Namrata Mohoptra, Adv.
M/S. Dua Associates, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manu Seshadri, Adv.
Mr. D. Balaraman, Adv.
Mr. Aveak Ganguly, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Anand, Adv.
Mr. Mithu Jain, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The present petition challenges the order dated 01.11.2021 Signature Not Verified passed by the Ld.Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.05.19 12:54:39 IST Reason: C.M.A.No. 1773/2021 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging the order dated 09.06.2021 passed by 2 the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Vide the said order, the Ld.Tribunal has passed an order of injunction in favour of the respondents restraining the present petitioner from encashing the bank guarantee of Rs.1,17,51,07,500/- given by the respondents in favour of the petitioner.
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the High Court are contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs.Heavy Engineering Corp. reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 1638, and in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1999) 8 SCC 436 case, referred to supra, wherein this Court has held that the invocation of the bank guarantee will have to be in accordance with the terms of the Bank Guarantee.
He further submitted that an injunction restraining the encashment of the bank guarantee could be granted only when egregious fraud has been established or when an irretrievable harm / injustice will be caused, if the bank guarantee is invoked by the beneficiary.
Mr. C.A.Sundaram and Mr. V.Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the order of High Court as well as the interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal warrants no interference in as much as the order passed by the Tribunal protects the interest of both the parties.
The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal under Section 17 of 3 the 1996 Act is akin to jurisdiction exercised under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC so also the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is akin to jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC. The High Court could not have interfered with the jurisdiction exercised by the Arbitral Tribunal unless it came to a finding that the exercise of jurisdiction was either perverse or impossible.
While affirming the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal the High Court has given sound reasons.
Therefore, in the facts of the present case, we do not find that the view taken by the Tribunal, so also by the High Court can be said to be perverse or impossible.
We further find that the Ld.Tribunal has attempted to balance the interest of both the parties in as much as it has directed the respondents to keep the bank guarantee alive during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings.
We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the present petition, however, we request the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal to decide the arbitral proceedings pending before it as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date of this order. We expect that both the parties will co-operate for expeditious disposal of the said proceedings.
The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(NIRMALA NEGI) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER