DOSHION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. IIC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act' ), inter alia, praying that respondent no.1 (IICL) be restrained from pursuing its request for invocation of the bank guarantees, which were furnished by the petitioner in terms of the contracts entered into between the parties. The controversy involved in all the petitions is common. It is also pointed out that the pleadings in these petitions are similar.

(2.) In view of the above, this Court would refer only to the facts as relevant to OMP (I) (Comm) 319/2017 for addressing the controversy raised in these petitions. The counsel appearing for the parties also agree that the decision in the said matter would be determinative of the other petitions as well.

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy involved in the present petition are as under:- 3. 1 The petitioner company is engaged in the business of waste management and providing water solutions etc. The petitioner claims that it has significant reputation in the field of its business. Respondent no.1 (hereafter 'IICL') is engaged in the field of generation of thermal power, renewal energy, mining etc. 3. 2 The petitioner was issued a Letter of Award (LoA) dated 15.10.2010 awarding the contract for design, engineering, manufacture, testing, supply, transportation, transit insurance, civil works including laying of GRP pipeline, commissioning and demonstration of performance guarantees of cross country pipeline of diameter 1200 mm and length 32.5 kms (hereafter referred to as "the work of cross country pipelines"). In terms of the LoA, the total contract price was Rs. 46.50 crores. 3. 3 In terms of the contract, the petitioner furnished seven bank guarantees for securing advances (advance bank guarantees) and securing the performance of the contract (performance guarantees). The details of the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner are set out below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_80_LAWS(DLH)3_2018_1.html</FRM> 3. 4 The petitioner claims that it completed substantial work to the extent of about 80% by 2013-14 but the balance work could be completed, as IICL ran into financial difficulties and was unable to make regular payments in terms of the contract between the parties. The petitioner avers that IICL got the remaining work executed from other agencies. 3. 5 The aforementioned bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner were kept alive and were extended from time to time. 3. 6 The petitioner further claims that it is entitled to receive an amount in excess of Rs. 7 crores from IICL. The petitioner also sought the aforesaid amount by a letter dated 02.03.2014.