Delhi High Court Orders Steel Authority Of India Ltd, India vs Tata Projects Ltd, India & Anr on 1 June, 2020 $~3 * + OMP(COMM) 418/2020, IA 3983/2020 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD, INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rimali Batra, Mr. Paritosh Goel & Mr. Mahip Singh, Advs. versus TATA PROJECTS LTD, INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Mr. Tanuj Agarwal, Ms. Sonal Gupta, Ms. Swati Bharadwaj & Ms. Chanan Parwani, Advs. for R1 Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhixit Singh & Ms. Devika Chopra, Advs. for R2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO ORDER % 01.06.2020 This matter is being heard through videoconferencing IA 3983/2020 in OMP(COMM) 418/2020 (for early hearing) This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking early hearing of the application being IA 3493/2020. When this application was listed on the last date of hearing, Mr. Basu had sought time to take instructions on deposit of the awarded amount, pending hearing of the OMP. Today Mr. Basu states, he has instructions to state that 100% of the amount awarded by the leaned Arbitral Tribunal shall be secured by the petitioner by way of Bank Guarantees on or before June 21, 2020. This submission of Mr. Basu is opposed by Mr. Kaul and Mr. Dutt, appearing for the respondents. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsels and noting the contents of the application, the early hearing of IA 3493/2020 and the petition is allowed. The IA 3493/2020 and the petition OMP (COMM) 418/2020 are taken up for hearing. The application is disposed of. OMP (COMM) 418/2020 Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Abhixit Singh, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Written submissions shall be filed by the parties one week before the next date of hearing i.e 15th July, 2020. IA 3493/2020 1. It is the submission of Mr. Joy Basu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is seeking exemption from depositing money / liquid cash on account of financial stress / liquidity crunch posed by COVID19 on account of absence of domestic and international demand, which has constrained the petitioner to increase its borrowing, with heavy interest. He states that the petitioner is praying to this Court to exercise its discretion by staying the impugned award and permitting the petitioner to secure the respondent's interest by way of Bank Guarantees for amount awarded in the impugned award by June 21, 2020. 2. In fact, it is his submission that the Ministry of Finance vide Notification dated February 20, 2020, clarified disruption of the supply chains due to spread of Corona Virus should be considered as a case of natural calamity and force majeure clause may be invoked showing the gravity of the present situation. He also states that Ministry of Finance press release dated March 24, 2020 announcing several relief measures such as moratorium on loans for three months, suspension of NPAs in view of COVID19 pandemic and suspension of Section 7, 9 and 10 of IBC showing that no coercive action be initiated against admitted debtors by any creditor. 3. According to him, this Court, has on various instances, while exercising the power and judicial discretion as provided under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act', for short), granted stay of the impugned award without requiring 100% deposit in cash and in this regard, he relies upon the following judgments: (i) SAIL vs. JSC Cryogenmash, OMP(COMM) 509/2018, wherein the Court vide order dated December 17, 2018, in the facts had granted unconditional stay order on enforcement of the impugned award; (ii) SAIL vs. M/s Tata Projects Ltd. & Anr., OMP(COMM) 392/2018, wherein the Court granted stay of the impugned award subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount; (iii) SAIL vs. M/s Seaspray Shipping