Nataskee Incorpoation vs Union Of India on 8 August, 2025

0
4


Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Nataskee Incorpoation vs Union Of India on 8 August, 2025

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.     OF 2025
                                (Arising out of SLP(C) NO.15345/2025)

                      NATASKEE INCORPORATION                                      APPELLANT



                                                    VERSUS



                      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                       RESPONDENTS

                                                    O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 27.07.2024 for

installation of Solar Grid Systems at various locations

within the Ratlam Railway Division; consequential letter

of acceptance in favour of the appellant; and subsequent

action of the respondents in rescinding the same due to

alleged failure of the appellant to provide a requisite

performance guarantee has led to initiation of

proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court,

Indore. The learned Commercial Court passed an order on

25.02.2025, allowing the appellant’s application to stay

the operation of the tender and restrain the respondents
Signature Not Verified
from allotting the work to any other bidder. In appeal
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.08.13

under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
11:02:27 IST
Reason:

1

1996, that order of the Commercial Court has been set

aside by the High Court on various grounds.

3. When the matter came up before this Court on

28.05.2025, it was directed while issuing notice that the

earnest money deposited by the appellant shall not be

forfeited.

4. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India

points out that, meanwhile, work has been allotted to a

new contractor, and the installation work is in progress.

He has also urged that the injunctive relief sought by

the Appellant before the Commercial Court is barred under

Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

5. The issues emanating from the arbitration dispute

between the parties are also sub judice before the

Commercial Court, including the preliminary objection

regarding maintainability raised by the respondents. All

those issues are yet to be gone into by the Commercial

Court. That being so, it is not expedient or desirable

for us to express any opinion on merits of the case.

6. The instant appeal is, accordingly, disposed of

with modification of the impugned order of the High Court

to the extent that the earnest money deposited by the

appellant shall not be forfeited and any bank guarantee

maintained by the appellant shall not be encashed till

the adjudication of the proceedings before the Commercial

Court.

7. It goes without saying that the appellant shall

2
continue to maintain such bank guarantees till

adjudication is complete. Ordered accordingly.

……………….J.
(SURYA KANT)

……………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

New Delhi;

August 08, 2025




                               3
ITEM NO.16               COURT NO.2                 SECTION IV-C

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15345/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2025
in ARBA No.57/2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore]

NATASKEE INCORPOATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 135112/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 135113/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.135111/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 08-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, AOR
Mr. Yojit Pareek, Adv.

Ms. Aarushi Jain, Adv.

Mr. Prateek Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Yashs Rk, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG
Mr. Khushal Kolwar, Adv.

Ms. Medha Trivedi, Adv.

Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv.

Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.

Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Nikita Sethi, Adv.

Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(signed order is placed on the file)

4
5



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here