Sepc Limited Earlier Known as Shirarm Epc Limited India Vs Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.

¶1

$~34

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 92/2026 & I.A. 6232/2026 SEPC LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHIRARM EPC LIMITED INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Mohit Negi and Mr. Nivesh Dixit, Advs. Mob: 9179085553 Email: [email protected] versus

¶4

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

¶5

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Jafar Alam, Mr. Akshay Bhatia and Mr. Rushan Salim Suri, Advs. for R-1 Mob: 9818366389 Email: [email protected] Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Ms. Richa Mishra, Ms. Mrinalini Tandon and Ms. Kashish Tewada, Advs. Mob: 9818299898 Email: [email protected]

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶7

%

¶8

O R D E R 12.03.2026

¶9

The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), on behalf of the petitioner. The petition has been filed at the post-award stage challenging the actions of respondent no. 1, i.e., Steel Authority of India Limited, whereby, the

¶10

Page 1 of 6

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:18:40

¶13

respondent no. 1 has invoked the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5,40,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Lacs Only) furnished by the petitioner, in favour of the respondent no. 1, in connection with the Contract Agreement dated 11^th May, 2010, for installation of a Medium Structural Mill at the Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur, West Bengal, India .

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Arbitral Award dated 20^th February, 2026, wherein, the respondent no. 1 is the Steel Authority of India, and respondent no. 3 is Shriram EPC Limited India, i.e., the petitioner herein. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs from the said Award, which are reproduced as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Page 2 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:18:40

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

By referring to the aforesaid Award, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Award, the respondent no. 1 herein was to return the Performance Bank Guarantee to the petitioner herein.

¶30

She further submits that in lieu of the Award, the amount payable to the petitioner is approximately to the tune of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:18:40

¶34

Crores), plus interest, along with return of the Performance Bank Guarantee to the petitioner by respondent no. 1.

¶35

She further submits that the only liability saddled upon the petitioner as per the Award is approximately Rs. 70,00,000 /- (Rupees Seventy Lacs Only), which is payable by the petitioner to respondent no. 1 as costs of the arbitration.

¶36

She, thus, submits that the amount payable by the petitioner to respondent no. 1, is much less than the amount which is payable by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner, and therefore, the said amounts could have been set off.

¶37

She draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 24^th February, 2026, written by the petitioner to respondent no. 1, as well as the letter dated 24^th February, 2026, written to the State Bank of India (“SBI”), wherein, the petitioner had clearly informed the SBI that as per the Award dated 20^th February, 2026, the Performance Bank Guarantee in question is to be returned to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner requested the SBI to not proceed with any further extension of the Performance Bank Guarantee in question.

¶38

She submits that despite the letters written by the petitioner, the petitioner was subsequently informed by an E-mail dated 10^th March, 2026 that the money had already been released to respondent no. 1.

¶39

She, thus, submits that the amount of Performance Bank Guarantee, i.e., Rs. 5,40,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Lacs Only) has been unlawfully encashed by respondent no. 1, and consequently seeks that the said money ought to be returned to the petitioner.

¶40

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, i.e., Steel

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:18:40

¶44

Authority of India submits that there are certain rights which have accrued in favour of respondent no. 1. He submits that the petitioner was required to keep the Performance Bank Guarantee alive, since the said Performance Bank Guarantee was to remain valid only till 28^th February, 2026.

¶45

He further submits that the Award was passed on 20^th February, 2026, and was notified only on 24^th February, 2026. Therefore, the respondent no. 1 has the statutory right to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, within a period of ninety (90) days. He, thus, submits that the petitioner was required to keep the Performance Bank Guarantee in question alive.

¶46

In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that merely because the respondent no. 1 has a statutory right under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to file objections against the Award, the same is no ground for encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee in question.

¶47

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, on a pointed query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that they shall be filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the Award in question, within the statutory period.

¶48

Keeping in view the directions in the Award, it is clear that as per the Award, the respondent no. 1 had to return the Performance Bank Guarantee to the petitioner.

¶49

At the same time, this Court takes note of the submission made on behalf of respondent no. 1 that their interest also has to be secured.

¶50

Considering the fact that as per the Award, the Performance Bank Guarantee was required to be returned to the petitioner by respondent no. 1, as an interim measure, it is directed that the amount of Rs. 5,40,00,000/-

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:18:40

¶54

(Rupees Five Crores Forty Lacs Only), as encashed towards the Performance Bank Guarantee, shall be deposited by respondent no. 1 with this Court.

¶55

At request of learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, let the needful be done, within a period of six (06) weeks, from today.

¶56

Upon deposit of the said amount with the Registrar General of this Court by respondent no. 1, the said amount shall be kept in an interest bearing account.

¶57

Directions with regard to release of the said amount shall be subject to any further directions by this Court, in appropriate proceedings.

¶58

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶59

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶60

MARCH 12, 2026/ SK

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 17:18:40

Sepc Limited Earlier Known as Shirarm Epc Limited India v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sepc Limited Earlier Known as Shirarm Epc Limited India v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Delhi Municpal Council Vs Simplex Projects Limited

M/S the New Hope Foundation Vs M/S Innovative Financial Advisors Private Limited

Kusum Chaudhary Vs Kajal Rana

Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited (Jpvl) Vs M/S Sagar Tradewings Pvt. Ltd.

Bhupendra Kumar Arora (Huf) Vs Taurus International (Projects) Private Limited and Ors.

Mr. Rajanish Dubey & Anr. Vs M/S S B Landcon Private Limited & Ors.