M/S B B CONSTURCTION v. THE GENERAL MANAGER & ORS

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant even on the first and the second calls.

2. The appeal has questioned the order dated 23.02.2018. The appellant had invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and sought an order to restrain the respondent/Indian Railways from en-cashing the bank guaranties and the FDRs. The appellant was awarded a contract for supplying, collecting and stacking 65mm gauge stone machine crushed ballast in terms of the railway standards and specifications for a stretch of Laksar and Haridwar section of Moradabad Division. Indian Railways, upon the opinion that the appellant was unable to perform the work, had invoked its rights to en-cash the bank guarantees. A restraint order FAO(OS) (COMM) 106/2018 Page 1 of[2] 2018:DHC:9151-DB was sought. After considering the facts of the case and the relevant case law, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the restraint order sought could not be justly granted and declined the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

3. This court is of the opinion that the impugned order is sound and in consonance with the well established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its several judgments. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out.