Supreme Court Quashes Order Directing Deposit of Performance Bank Guarantees in Arbitration Dispute. The Commercial Court's order was found to lack necessary preconditions under the CPC for interim measures.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from three purchase orders between the appellant and respondent concerning the quality of cables supplied. The appellant claimed a loss of approximately INR 29.31 crores due to defective cables and invoked bank guarantees issued by the respondent. The respondent countered with a claim for outstanding payments. Following the invocation of the bank guarantees, the respondent filed applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to secure the amounts. The Commercial Court ordered the appellant to deposit the amounts of the bank guarantees, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, found that the Commercial Court's order did not meet the necessary conditions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, as there were no specific allegations that the appellant would defeat any potential award. The court emphasized that interim measures under Section 9 must be justified by cogent evidence of potential misconduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of the High Court and the Commercial Court but directed the appellant to provide an undertaking to honor any future arbitration award, subject to appeal. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Conditions for Granting Orders - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 - The Commercial Court's order directing the appellant to deposit performance bank guarantees was quashed as it did not satisfy the preconditions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC. The court held that specific allegations and cogent material were necessary to justify such an order, which were absent in this case (Paras 4-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Commercial Court could direct the appellant to deposit the amount of performance bank guarantees under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without satisfying the preconditions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the orders of the High Court and the Commercial Court directing the appellant to deposit the amounts of performance bank guarantees. The court directed the appellant to furnish an undertaking to honor any arbitration award, subject to appeal, within four weeks.

Law Points

  • Interim measures
  • Arbitration Act
  • 1996
  • Section 9
  • CPC Order XXXVIII Rule 5
  • performance bank guarantees
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (09) 229

Civil Appeal No. 6908 of 2022

2022-09-30

M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari

Shri Vivek Chib, Shri K.V. Viswanathan

Sanghi Industries Limited

Ravin Cables Ltd., and Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding performance bank guarantees and arbitration proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to quash the order directing deposit of bank guarantees.

Filing Reason

The Commercial Court's order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

Previous Decisions

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Commercial Court's order.

Issues

Whether the Commercial Court had the authority to direct the deposit of bank guarantees under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act without satisfying CPC conditions.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the Commercial Court's order lacked necessary preconditions under the CPC. Respondent contended that the order was justified to secure the amounts in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act require satisfaction of specific conditions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, which were not met in this case.

Judgment Excerpts

The Commercial Court could not have passed such an order in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The order directing the appellant to deposit the amount of respective performance bank guarantees was quashed.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the appeal against the Commercial Court's order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXVIII Rule 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Notification Under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Clarifying Unworked Land Includes Dormant Mines. Restrictions on Mining Rights During Prospecting Period Are Reasonable and Protected by Article 31A(...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Challenge to High Court's Order in Arbitration Dispute — Key Issues on Change in Law and Tariff Fixation.