- (1.) The appellant-non-claimant, the Road Infrastructure Development Rajasthan Ltd. ('the appellant' for short) is aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an interim application filed by the respondent-claimant, M/s I.V.R.C.L. Ltd., and has directed the appellant to deposit the bank guarantee amount to the tune of Rs.7,07,35,474/- in a fixed deposit with a Nationalised Bank within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1954. It is a venture of the Govt. of Rajasthan and Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. The Company was incorporated for the purpose of developing infrastructure facilities including construction of Mega Highway Project roads in the State of Rajasthan. While the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, is the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Additional Chief Secretary (Infrastructure) and Principal Secretary (Finance) are the Directors on the Board of Directors of the Company. Further, on 17.1.2006, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent-claimant for construction and maintenance of a road from Village Pachpadra to Village Ramji Ki Gol (PR-2) 138 kms. The total cost of construction was Rs.141.47 crore, and for its maintenance Rs.8.61 crore. Thus, the total contract cost was of Rs.150/- crore. According to the contract entered between the parties, the respondent-claimant was responsible for the improvement/construction work, and for maintenance work for a period of five years. The construction was to be completed within eighteen months from the date of commencement; the road had to be maintained for five years, i.e. from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013, from the date of completion of the construction. But according to the appellant, the construction work was delayed by seventeen months beyond the stipulated period of construction. Moreover, the respondent-claimant failed to carry out the maintenance of the said road after the initial period of two years from the date of the completion of the road. Thereafter, the respondent-claimant did not continue the maintenance work. Therefore, according to the appellant, it was constraint to hire the services of other contractors to carry out the maintenance of the said road from January 2011 till 2013. In order to give the contract to a third party, on 13.1.2012 the appellant issued a short term NIT (Tender). The respondent-claimant challenged the said NIT before this Court by filing a writ petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1622/2012. Initially this Court granted a stay on 13.2.2012. However, on 28.3.2012 the stay was vacated by this court. Subsequently, certain disputes have arisen between the appellant and the respondent-claimant. Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause, the disputes have been referred to an arbitrator. Presently, the case is sub-judice before the arbitrator.
(3.) During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the respondent-claimant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) for preventing the appellant from encashing the bank guarantee. The said application was filed on 22.1.2014. The learned Judge issued notice on the same day. On 23.1.2014, the appellant appeared before the learned Judge. The appellant submitted an affidavit wherein it clearly informed the Court that the bank guarantee has already been encashed on 22.1.2014. However, by order dated 24.1.2014 the learned Judge directed the appellant to deposit the bank guarantee amount in a fixed deposit with a Nationalised Bank. Hence this appeal before this Court.;