How the bank guarantees became central
Ishvakoo received a mobilisation advance secured by guarantees. Earlier court directions linked invocation to the arbitral determination while requiring the guarantees to remain alive. They were later encashed when they were not maintained. The award dismissed Ishvakoo’s claims, but the Court found it important that the arbitrator had not addressed the intervening encashment in the manner necessary to resolve the controversy now before it. (Paragraphs 3–10 and 26(i)–(v).)
Why the post-award application was different
The Supreme Court examined the contents of the award, the absence of a counterclaim by NPCC and the absence, on the prima facie assessment, of a finding that the mobilisation advance had not been used. It considered whether retaining the money pending the challenge would unjustly enrich NPCC and defeat effective interim protection. An earlier order declining relief before the award did not mechanically answer this later application in its changed context. (Paragraph 26(ii)–(vi).)
The higher threshold still had to be met
The Court described the record as a rare and compelling case satisfying the relevant threshold for the requested interim direction. It approved the High Court’s assessment of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable prejudice, and noted the applicant’s reasonable expedition. The decision does not make repayment or deposit routine whenever a party challenges an award. The facts explaining why protection was necessary remain essential. (Paragraph 26(vii)–(ix).)
Deposit is not the final merits decision
NPCC was given four weeks to deposit ₹3.5 crore. The registry was directed to hold the amount in an automatically renewing fixed deposit until disposal of the Section 34 application. The Court expressly protected that application from being decided by observations in the interim proceedings. Any headline saying the contractor finally won ₹3.5 crore would collapse the distinction between preservation of money and adjudication of entitlement. (Paragraph 27.)
A question this judgment answers
Did the Supreme Court finally set aside the arbitral award?
No. The Section 34 challenge remained to be decided on its own merits; this ruling upheld an interim deposit under Section 9. (Paragraph 27.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- Rajat Arora, Ms. Mariya Shahab.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Ajay Bansal, Ms. Veena Bansal, Gaurav Yadav, Sourav Jindal, Aditya Gupta, Ms. Pooja, Kuldip Singh.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5819 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2019 of the High Court for the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 113 of 2019