THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22560 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition can be disposed of at this stage itself, since I had the benefit of hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri S. Niranjan Reddy and Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel, who took notice on behalf of the respondent National Highways Authority of India. This Writ Petition has been instituted essentially calling in question the order passed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India on 03.08.2011 directing the writ petitioner company to extend five bank guarantees specified therein for further necessary period, preferably another six months, failing which the respondent declares its intention to encash the said bank guarantees. The petitioner submits that he has been awarded a contract of certain works relating to widening of the existing highway between K.Ms. 97 and 171 and also up to Itchapuram of the National Highway No. 5. Pursuant to certain disputes that have cropped up between the parties, a Board of Arbitration came to be constituted and the said Board of Arbitration has passed its Award on 18.03.2007. As per the Award, the writ petitioner, who is the claimant, is declared as entitled to a sum of Rs.28,53,27,823.00. It is worth to notice here itself that it is observed by the Board of Arbitration immediately thereafter as under: “ Out of the said sum an amount of Rs.7,21,60,839.00 is admitted by the respondents. We, therefore, award a sum of Rs.21,31,66,984.00 to the claimant under this claim.” It is also worth noticing that the bank guarantees, which have been appended at Appendix-IV of the claim statement, are directed to be returned forthwith to the claimant by the Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration has also declared that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.24,81,908/- as reimbursement of bank charges paid by them. It is now contended by Sri Niranjan Reddy that this is the amount, which was incurred by the writ petitioner towards extension of the bank guarantees. In view of the award passed by the Board of Arbitration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed on 03.08.2011 is ex facie illegal. The respondent cannot act contrary to the Award and cannot insist that the bank guarantee should be extended by the petitioner by a further period of six months. Per contra, Sri K. V. Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel would contend that against the Award dated 18.03.2007, it is no doubt true that an application A.O.P.No. 406 of 2008 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been moved, which was unfortunately, dismissed on 07.04.2011 improperly and when appealed against the said order, this Court has promptly set aside the order dated 07.04.2011 of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam and remanded the mater back for fresh consideration and hence, the Award has not attained finality and the proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act are yet to be finalized by the District Court. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the interests of the respondent are required to be safeguarded and secured in the meantime. Hence, the writ petitioner claimant has only been advised to extend the bank guarantees and any failure to do so would invite the action for encashment of such bank guarantees. It will be appropriate, at this stage, to notice that Section 9 of the 1996 Act, which has provided for interim measures, which can be taken by the Court concerned, makes it clear that a party may, before or during or at any time after the making of the arbitral award, but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the said Act, apply to a Court for an interim measure of protection for securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration. It is therefore, certainly open to the respondent to move the District Court concerned for securing the amount in dispute in arbitration even after the arbitral proceedings have ended in an Award being passed. I therefore, consider that the question, which arises in this regard namely, as to whether the petitioner should be required to extend the bank guarantees or not, has got to be left to be determined and decided by the competent Court, in terms of Section 9 of the 1996 Act. However, one of the bank guarantees is now expiring on 16.08.2011. If the said bank guarantee is allowed to lapse by 16.08.2011, the civil Court will not be in a position to undertake a proper adjudication even in an application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act moved by the respondent. It is therefore, only appropriate that the writ petitioner shall extend the validity of the bank guarantee, which is likely to expire on 16.08.2011, till 31.08.2011, so that the appropriate and competent civil Court will decide the respective rights and balance of convenience lying in between the parties in the post-arbitral Award stage. Only for the purpose of enabling the civil Court to undertake an adjudication in this regard, I direct the petitioner to extend the validity of the bank guarantee BG No. 58/04, dated 18.08.2004 in a sum of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- till 31.08.2011, so as to enable the civil Court concerned to adjudicate the matter on merits of the respective claims and take an appropriate decision in that regard. It is totally needless for me to observe that the present order is only passed as an interim measure till the civil Court is approached by the respondent for the purpose of securing its interests with reference to the amount involved in the arbitral proceedings. During the course of discussion of this case, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, upon being instructed by his client, informs the Court that the writ petitioner is ready and willing to extend the bank guarantee BG No. 58/04, dated 18.08.2004 in a sum of Rs. 4,05,00,000/-, till 31.08.2011. In that view of the matter, I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on the tenability or otherwise of the claims and contentions canvassed on either side. It is certainly open to the petitioner also to move an application under Section 9 of the Act to secure its interests vis-à-vis the respondent. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 12th August 2011 ksld