ROMAN TARMAT LIMITED Vs. INDUKURU VENKU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE O.A. No. 901 of 2012 is filed for interim injunction restraining the respondent, its directors, office bearers, agents, representatives or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner utilising the amount of Rs. 14,59,19,989/ received by the respondent by encashing the bank guarantees provided by the applicant pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings, A. No. 4812 of 2012 is filed for directing the respondent to deposit the aforementioned sum.

(2.) THE respondent was originally M/s. Indukuru Venku Reddy Constructions Ltd. (shortly known as 'IVRCL') and its name was subsequently amended as M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects Limited and the same was again amended as IVRCL Limited and the interim relief are now sought for against IVRCL Limited.

(3.) WHILE it is the case of the applicant that due to inordinate delay and resultant loss caused to the applicant, the applicant was not able to perform their work and the respondent as agreed between the parties, took over the responsibility of performance of contract by using machineries belonging to the applicant, according to the respondent, the inordinate delay on the part of the applicant compelled the respondent to accept the responsibility of management and execution of the work. While it is the further case of the applicant that the respondent though received payment from NATRIP for the work already executed by the applicant as well as for supply of materials, entire amount was appropriated by the respondent, who failed to make any payment to the applicant even after the applicant having submitted necessary running account receipts and even after several request made by the applicant, according to the respondent, the respondent undertook the work at the responsibility and risk and at the cost of the applicant and the applicant is due to pay for the work executed by the respondent. It is also the case of the applicant that as nothing remains to be performed by the applicant, performance of bank guarantee furnished by the applicant is unnecessary and is liable to the refunded to the applicant. Whereas, according to the respondent, the applicant was due to pay mobilisation advance of Rs. 4,15,04,931/ and more amount towards cost of execution of work carried out by the respondent. Thus, there is admittedly serious dispute between the parties as to who is responsible for delay and the circumstances under which the respondent carried out the remaining contractual work and as to whether the respondent is entitled to invoke bank guarantee, the bank guarantee is liable to be refunded or not.