Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioner submitted the variation proposal. The GC, by a letter dated October 30, 2024, informed the petitioner that due to failure on the part of the petitioner to supply the approved BCC in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 2.1 of the contract, the respondent had decided to procure the same from an outside agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The letter stated that the work of procurement of the BCC equipment along with related software were de-scoped from the petitioner's contract. That was the starting point of the dispute.

v) All required licences for AFC systems are to be provided as per Clause 2.3.2(o) of Volume 4.

vi) Data Storage capacity at BCC should be complied as per the requirements of Clause 4.2.8 of Volume 4.

vii) Functional requirements as defined in the contract are to be complied."

13. By letters dated December 26, 2023, June 12, 2024 and September 3, 2024, the petitioner contended that the meetings were held with the technical team of CRIS, for review of various technical aspects. Some additional works were required and the same should be channelized through a variation order. Accordingly, the petitioner put on hold the procurement of the BCC equipments until the respondent agreed to issue a variation order. Similar contentions were raised in the subsequent letters and according to the petitioner's estimate, Rs.5,73,91,000/- would be the additional cost. Accordingly, by the letter dated September 3, 2024, the petitioner requested the respondent to either approve the financial variation proposal that was submitted earlier or allow the petitioner to deliver the BCC as approved earlier without the additional equipments and systems. By a letter dated October 30, 2024, the respondent informed the petitioner that the respondent had decided to procure the BCC equipment from an outside agency, by de-scoping the BCC equipment and the related software, from the AFC contract. Thereafter, the parties negotiated and had several meetings, but the dispute remained unresolved.

15. By the letter dated October 30, 2024, the respondent informed the petitioner that the requirement for the BCC equipment and the related software, were being de-scoped from the contract. Thus, the respondent always understood that the said requirements were a part of the original contract. The respondent also informed the petitioner that the equipments would be procured from a third party agency and the payment to the said third party would be recovered from the petitioner. On and from October 30, 2024, the petitioner was well aware of the stand of the respondent. Even thereafter, the parties negotiated and the petitioner raised queries and tried to clarify its position. Although the petitioner contradicted the allegation of the respondent that, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the contract, it does not appear to this Court that the petitioner had taken any other step, by seeking any order against such deduction. The act of de-scoping, indicates that, the respondent always treated the procurement of the BCC equipments and the related software, as a contractual obligation of the petitioner. RA Bills were raised and sums were deducted from the RA Bills, on a regular basis even after October 30, 2024. The petitioner did not seek recourse to law, but continued to negotiate. The deductions continued up to June, 2025. It is at this juncture, when all the RA Bills had been paid after deduction that, the petitioner feels threatened that the PBG will be invoked. The law is well- settled that, there cannot be an injunction against invocation of a bank guarantee unless equity demands, or the bank guarantee is a product of fraud. Relevant decisions relied on are North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Patel Unity Joint Venture and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 Meghalaya 30 and Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 574.

19. The decision in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited reported in (2022) 20 SCC 178 was on the proposition that the rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable when the Court decides a prayer for injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that while technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, should not prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice if a strong, prima facie, case was made out and the balance of convenience was in favour of granting an interim relief. The Court should exercise such power and should not withhold the relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments incorporating grounds for attachment or security. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that there should be a strong, prima facie, case and the balance of convenience and inconvenience should be in favour of granting such injunction. This Court finds that the proposal for de-scoping the work from the contract of the petitioner was taken on October 30, 2024, when the petitioner was adequately put on notice. The petitioner kept silent. Thereafter, parties negotiated. Minutes of the meetings, which form part of the petitioner's correspondence, clearly indicate that talks were going on over the issue, but the respondent maintained its stand and continued with the silence. The petitioner allowed the deductions from its RA Bills over a period of 6-7 months.