2021 (7) TMI 702 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking an order to restrain the Respondent from encashing bank guarantees - HELD THAT - In view of the statement made by Mr. Handoo and the fact that the parties are going to attempt a settlement, Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that he would not like to press the present petition at this stage and seeks liberty to approach this Court, at a later stage, in case the Respondent initiates steps for the invocation of the bank guarantees. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner as aforesaid.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to restrain the Respondent from encashing bank guarantees.
2. Dismissal of the petition with liberty to approach the Court later if needed.
3. Arbitration clause not invoked by the Petitioner leading to suggestions for an amicable settlement.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the Petitioner sought an order to restrain the Respondent from encashing bank guarantees specified in the petition. The Respondent, through their counsel, informed the Court that they had not invoked the bank guarantees and had no immediate intention to do so. Both parties expressed a willingness to attempt a settlement. Consequently, the Senior Counsel for the Petitioner decided not to press the petition at that stage, with the liberty to approach the Court later if the need arises. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

2. In a separate matter related to arbitration proceedings, it was highlighted that the Petitioner had not invoked the arbitration clause, which came as a surprise to the Respondent. Following discussions between counsels, it was suggested that the parties explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. The Petitioner, while maintaining their rights and contentions, expressed readiness to consider a settlement. Consequently, the Petitioner did not press the petition, seeking the liberty to approach the Court later if required. The statements made by the counsels were recorded, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Petitioner for future action, if necessary.

3. The judgment reflects a pragmatic approach by the Court in encouraging parties to consider settlements and resolving disputes amicably. The dismissal of the petitions with liberty to approach the Court later signifies the Court's recognition of the parties' willingness to engage in settlement discussions before resorting to formal legal proceedings. The emphasis on exploring settlement options showcases the Court's support for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the importance of parties actively considering amicable resolutions before escalating matters further through legal avenues.