M/S SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs PARNIKA COMMERCIAL AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29.05.2025 + O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 165/2025 M/S SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Joel, Mr. Ujjval Gupta, Mr. Shivank Aggarwal, Mr. Dhruv Chatrath, Advs. versus PARNIKA COMMERCIAL AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Ms. Muskan Gupta, Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Abeere Malik, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from invoking two bank guarantees, i.e. the Advance Bank Guarantee (“ABG”) and the Performance Bank Guarantee (“PBG”), totaling to Rs.1,14,40,676/-, issued in favour of the respondent. 2. Vide the Order dated 07.05.2025 passed by this Court, in paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, while staying the bank guarantees, it was held as under: “13. As per the averments of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has not completed the office building or made it ready for Digitally Signed O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 165/2025 Page 1 of 11 By:MAYANK Signing Date:04.06.2025 16:26:50 the installation of lifts and escalators. 14. Further, the advance bank guarantee was furnished with respect to the lifts and escalators to be supplied by the petitioner. The advance amount has been utilized and the petitioner has already supplied 03 lifts and 01 escalator. As regards, the PBG is concerned, the respondent no. 1 has attributed the delay of the completion of Work Order on the petitioner, however, prima facie, I am of the view that a ready site was essential for the completion of the work order and in the absence of a