Full Text
Translation output
$-15 to 19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) (COMM) 38/2017, 39/2017, 40/2017, 43/2017 & 44/2017
TRF LIMITED Appellant
Through Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Poddar, Mr.Kartik
Bhardwaj, Mr.Sarthak Katyal, Mr.Jaideep Singh & Ms.Priyansha
Singh, Advs.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 38/2017, 39/2017, 40/2017, 43/2017 & 44/2017
TRF LIMITED Appellant
Through Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Poddar, Mr.Kartik
Bhardwaj, Mr.Sarthak Katyal, Mr.Jaideep Singh & Ms.Priyansha
Singh, Advs.
VERSUS
ENERGO ENGINEERING PORJECTS LIMITED & ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Dhruv Dewan & Ms.Reena Coudhary, Advs.
Through Mr.Dhruv Dewan & Ms.Reena Coudhary, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
11.08.2017 It is informed that the bank guarantees have been encashed.
In view of the aforesaid position, present appeals are rendered infructuous.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that alternative prayer made in the present appeals is to the effect that, if the bank guarantee are encashed, order of injunction should be passed restraining respondent No.l from utilizing the encashed bank guarantee amount in any manner whatsoever or return the same to respondent No.l bank. We are not inclined to accept the said prayer of the appellant, leaving
2017:DHC:9030-DB it open to the appellant to raise all contentions and issues before the
Arbitrator or otherwise, in appropriate proceedings, if maintainable in accordance with the law. It is stated that independent Arbitrator is to be appointed by the Court and order on petition under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in this regard, is reserved.
Acceptance of the alternative prayer would require adjudication and decision on the main dispute and lis between the parties. It would amount to in depth and final adjudication. Restraint from utilizing would have effect of attachment before
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
11.08.2017 It is informed that the bank guarantees have been encashed.
In view of the aforesaid position, present appeals are rendered infructuous.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that alternative prayer made in the present appeals is to the effect that, if the bank guarantee are encashed, order of injunction should be passed restraining respondent No.l from utilizing the encashed bank guarantee amount in any manner whatsoever or return the same to respondent No.l bank. We are not inclined to accept the said prayer of the appellant, leaving
2017:DHC:9030-DB it open to the appellant to raise all contentions and issues before the
Arbitrator or otherwise, in appropriate proceedings, if maintainable in accordance with the law. It is stated that independent Arbitrator is to be appointed by the Court and order on petition under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in this regard, is reserved.
Acceptance of the alternative prayer would require adjudication and decision on the main dispute and lis between the parties. It would amount to in depth and final adjudication. Restraint from utilizing would have effect of attachment before
ORDER
, and this would require appropriate and different pleading and a case being set up. The issue and contentions argued before us relate to and are restricted to encashment of bank guarantee.
With the aforesaid observation, appeals are disposed of.
-•//
SANJIV KHANNA,J. naviNchawla, j.
AUGUST 11, 2017 2017:DHC:9030-DB
With the aforesaid observation, appeals are disposed of.
-•//
SANJIV KHANNA,J. naviNchawla, j.
AUGUST 11, 2017 2017:DHC:9030-DB