CWP No.20177 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20177 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.11.2011 M/s V.K.Sood Engineer & Contractor Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner versus Punjab National Bank & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) The petitioner-company entered into 8 contracts for the construction works of SYL Canal Projects in different reaches with respondents No.5 & 6. Certain disputes arose between the parties arising out of the contracts. Parties resorted to settlement through the arbitration in accordance with the stipulations contained in the contracts which inter alia provide for settlement of the inter se dispute through the arbitration. The appointed arbitrator passed 8 awards in favour of the petitioner. These awards came to be challenged by respondent No.4 by filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Four such objection petitions were filed in the Trial Court at Patiala and four at Ropar. These objection petitions were finally dismissed by the Courts. Respondent No.4 filed 8 appeals being FAO Nos.146, 147, 946, 947, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 of 1989 before this Court. It seems that these appeals were dismissed by the High CWP No.20177 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Court in absence of respondent No.4. Aggrieved of the orders of dismissal of appeals, respondent No.4 filed LPAs before the Division Bench of this Court. However, petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP Nos.5658-73 of 1993 against filing of LPAs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.05.1993 while setting aside the orders passed in LPA's remitted the cases back to the High Court (Appellate Authority). Simultaneously petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee in favour of the Registrar of the High Court. As a consequence of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner furnished three bank guarantees Nos.5/93 dated 19.06.1993, No.6/93 dated 19.06.1993 and No.7/93 dated 14.07.1993 for an amount of Rs.155.45 lacs, Rs.57 lacs and Rs.37.55 lacs total Rs.250 lacs in favour of the Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court. While these FAOs were pending before this Court by virtue of an amendment in the relevant rules all the FAOs were transferred to District Judge, Ropar and later 4 of the 8 appeals were redirected to District Court, Patiala. All these appeals came to be dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 27.11.2009 and later the other 4 appeals filed before the District Judge, Ropar came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2011. These judgments have attained finality in absence of any further challenge thereto. On dismissal of the appeals, the petitioner herein filed application for release of bank guarantees furnished by him pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that despite the fact that the litigation pending between the parties stand finally decided, the bank – respondent No.1 was/is CWP No.20177 of 2011 (O&M) -3- under obligation to release the bank guarantees or to adjust the margin money deposited by the petitioner for securing the bank guarantees against the loan given by the same bank. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that the bank is deliberately withholding the bank guarantees and charging bank charges from the petitioner even though the bank guarantees automatically stand determined, the purpose for which the same were furnished having finally settled. The petitioner has made an application dated 02.05.2011 before the Additional District Judge, Rorpar for a direction to release the bank guarantees to enable him to surrender those to the bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the three bank guarantees are lying with the Ropar Court. It is further contended that the Ropar court is not releasing the bank guarantees even when the litigation pending before different court has been finally decided. As a consequence of such inaction on the part of the ADJ, Ropar, the petitioner is bound to suffer huge loss in the form of bank expenses which are being levied and charged from the petitioner for keeping the bank guarantees alive. Order 13 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code provides for return of the documents produced by any of the party to the suit and desirous of receiving back of the same where the matter is disposed of and period for appeal has elapsed and document is otherwise not required to be impounded. In the present case, the bank guarantees were not produced as a piece of evidence before the courts below but only on account of directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of security. The litigation between the parties stand concluded and no further appeal has been preferred. Thus, there is no legal impediment CWP No.20177 of 2011 (O&M) -4- for the court to release the bank guarantees in favour of the petitioner when he has not incurred any liability under the litigation. One fails to understand the reason for retaining the document. However, it is not prudent for this Court to issue any direction at this stage without ascertaining actual facts. Be that as it may, the petitioner has made an application before ADJ, Ropar for release of the bank guarantees. It is more than six months that the miscellaneous application is pending for consideration. In exercise of our jurisdiction of Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, we deem it appropriate to direct the ADJ, Ropar to decide the application of the petitioner for release of the bank guarantees within a period of three months in accordance with law. However, this shall not prevent the petitioner from seeking any damages or compensation from the bank for its inaction if so permitted under law. (Permod Kohli) Judge November 03, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge