IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6413 of 2009 Date of Decision : 23.7.2010 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & anr. ....Petitioners Versus M/s Contimeters Electricals Pvt.Ltd. and anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.2. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition is directed against the order by which the petitioners were directed to refund the bank guarantee which was encashed by them along with interest. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 had supplied meters to the petitioners and a dispute arose inter se between the parties leading to the appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave award in favour of the petitioners but in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the same was set aside on the ground that the arbitrator had not been validly appointed. Against the said order an appeal was filed C.R.No.6413 of 2009 -2- which was also dismissed. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of Addl.District Judge praying that since the bank guarantee had been wrongly encashed, the amount of bank guarantee may be restituted along with interest which application has since been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that pursuant to the earlier proceedings of the arbitrator having been set aside, a fresh arbitrator has been appointed and the arbitrator is seized of the matter and the respondent No.1 is participating in the same and further that the question whether the petitioners have rightly or wrongly encashed the bank guarantee is yet to be decided. He contends that at this stage it would be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners to pass any order in the writ petition. He further states that in the event of the arbitrator coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have wrongly encashed the bank guarantee, the petitioners shall obviously be liable to pay the amount along with interest at the conclusion of the proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, states that the order is justified as the petitioners have wrongly encashed the bank guarantee. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the plea of the petitioners is justified. The matter whether the bank guarantee had been correctly encashed by the petitioners is yet to be determined in the proceedings before the arbitrator. In such an eventuality any direction to the petitioners to C.R.No.6413 of 2009 -3- return the amount of bank guarantee along with interest amounts to predetermination of issue. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. It is made clear that in the event of respondent No.1 succeeding in the proceedings before the arbitrator, the petitioners shall be liable to return the bank guarantee along with interest. 23.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss