LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-jindal-steel-and-power-ltd-anr-vs-m-s-bansal-infra-projects-pvt-ltd-ors-20250507/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. vs M/s Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
7 May 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6413 of 2025
Result
Disposed
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan
Citation
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1263 : 2025 INSC 640
Acts & Sections
Contract Act Constitution Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1263 : 2025 INSC 640
Issue for consideration
Appellants issued work order to 1st respondent for construction of flats and paid advance. Bank guarantee equivalent to the advance money was furnished by 1st respondent to secure the amount. When the work got delayed and disputes arose between the parties, the appellants requested refund of debit balance, failing which the bank guarantee was to be encashed. The 1st respondent filed petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Commercial Court, along with applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, so as to restrain the appellants from proceeding with encashment of the bank guarantee. The applications for interim order were rejected by Commercial Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed against the same order and stayed encashment of the bank guarantee till disposal of the Arbitration Petition. The issues before the Supreme Court were:

i.

Whether a Court of law can interfere with invocation of a bank guarantee when no exceptional circumstances of fraud or irretrievable injustice is proved to exist?

ii.

Whether the High Court was right in granting interim protection against the invocation of the bank guarantee until the disposal of the Section 9 arbitration petition while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Headnote

Bank guarantee – Injunction against its invocation – Settled legal principle:

Held: The terms of the bank guarantee are, therefore, extremely material – The bank guarantee should be in unequivocal terms, unconditional and recite that the amount would be paid without demur or objection and irrespective of any dispute that might have cropped up or might have been pending between the beneficiary under the bank guarantee or the person on whose behalf the guarantee was furnished – In Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar and others,(1999) 8 SCC 436 the Supreme Court after placing reliance on various judgments held that courts are reluctant in granting an injunction against the invocation of bank guarantee, except in the case of fraud, which should be an established fraud, or where irretrievable injury was likely to be caused to the guarantor – Bank guarantees serve as the backbone of commercial transactions and must be honored in accordance with their terms.[Para 11] Impugned order – Whether legally sustainable in facts of the case:

Held: If the appellants were permitted to invoke the bank guarantee, the prayer made in the Section 9 arbitration petition would become infructuous – The order was subject to Respondent No. 1 extending the validity of the bank guarantee – Therefore, the order of the High Court was merely an interim measure intended to protect the interests of both parties and correct – The arguments of both sides have already concluded in the arbitration petition – An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate the disputes between the parties; a hearing was held; and the parties have appeared – Thus, in view of the ongoing arbitration proceedings concerning the bank guarantee, it is imperative to maintain the existing position regarding the same until the final outcome of the Section 9 arbitration petition – Respondent No. 1 has given an undertaking to extend the validity of the bank guarantee till the disposal of the Section 9 arbitration petition – As of now, no prejudice to appellants – The Commercial Court shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks and until such time, the bank guarantee shall be kept alive subject to the outcome of the Section 9 arbitration petition. [Paras 12-15]

Keywords: Bank guarantee · Arbitration · Interim order · Injunction

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack1 in W.P. (C) No. 11848 of 2024 which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Cuttack2, in Arbitration Petition No. 14 of 2024 filed by Respondent No.1. The Commercial Court by the said order dated 30.04.2024 rejected the prayer for ex parte ad interim injunction made in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 and Sect
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →