UNION OF INDIA Vs. BEB-DDS-RKD(JV)-NAYAK(JV)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. U. K. Nair, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This is an application under Sec. 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) challenging the order dtd. 15/11/2019, passed in Misc. (Arb) Case No. 57/2019 whereby the Court of the Additional District Judge, No. 1, (Kamrup (M) at Guwahati vide the said order had restrained the appellants herein from invoking or encashing the performance bank guarantee amounting to Rs.8,01,88,780.00 furnished by the respondent herein and also from forfeiting the security deposit and earnest money deposited by it for the work allotted to it.

(3.) At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention certain relevant facts before entering into the adjudication of the appeal. The order impugned is an ex-parte order. The appellants had filed the written objection in the said Misc (Arb.) Case No. 57/2019 and the Court of the Additional District Judge, No. 1, (Kamrup (M) at Guwahati is presently in seisin of the Sec. 9 proceedings. Further to that, it is also relevant to mention that on 21/9/2020, this Court while taking up the instant appeal had also made an observation that there shall be no bar on the part of the learned Court of the Additional District Judge to give final consideration to the Misc. (Arb) Case No. 57/2019, even during the pendency of this appeal and before the next date fixed for consideration of the appeal. Mr. G. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in spite of the said observation made by this Court, till date, the said Misc. (Arb) Case No. 57/2019 is still pending before the court below and the order impugned and the delay in disposal of the said Sec. 9 proceedings has seriously affected the rights of the appellants.