JUDGEMENT
INDIRA BANERJEE, J. -
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals are against a judgment and order dated 27.11.2020, passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, dismissing the Appeal
being FAO(OS) (COMM) No.136 of 2019, filed by the Appellant under
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, hereinafter
referred to, in short, as the "A & C Act " read with Section 13(1A) of the
Commercial Courts Act 2015, and affirming an order dated 16.05.2019
passed by the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court in OMP(I)
(COMM) No.523/2017 under Section 9 of the A & C Act, whereby the Court
refused to recall its earlier order dated 09.04.2019, directing the Appellant
to substitute an irrevocable Bank Guarantee, issued by the Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China Limited (ICBC), Mumbai Branch for Rs.30 Crores
furnished pursuant to an order dated 12.02.2019 of the Court, with a Bank
Guarantee of a "Scheduled Indian Bank " of the same amount. The
Appellant has also impugned a judgment and order dated 12.03.2021
passed by the Division Bench dismissing Review Petition No.5/2021 filed
by the Appellant for review of the said judgment and order dated
27.11.2020 dismissing the Appeal.
(3.) The short question in these Appeals is, whether the High Court was right in refusing to accept a legally valid irrevocable Bank Guarantee of
Rs.30 Crores, issued by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Limited, Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as 'ICBC ' which is a Scheduled
Bank included in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act,
1934, and insisting that the Appellant should furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee of the same amount, with identical terms, issued by a
"Scheduled Indian Bank ", notwithstanding the expenditure incurred by the
Appellant in obtaining the Bank Guarantee from ICBC.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.