the agreement dated 01.05.2015 and accordingly, the respondent-SHAJ exercised its right to encash the bank guarantees in terms with the agreement. All the letters of the petitioner for extension of time for completion of work are of the year 2017, whereas the agreement was entered on 01.05.2015. Thus, for almost 2 years, the petitioner never raised any issue of obstructions/obstacles/ clearances at the site and only to justify its default, frivolous allegations were made against the respondent-SHAJ. It is further submitted that the first and second mobilization advance were released to the petitioner in time, however, the third mobilization advance was delayed due to slow progress of work. Moreover, as per Article 19.2.6 and 19.2.7 of the agreement, each installment of advance payment was required to be repaid by the petitioner to the respondent-SHAJ not later than 365 days from the respective date of advance payment and in the event of such failure, the respondent-SHAJ was entitled to encash the bank guarantees. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted eight bank guarantees for mobilization advance for an amount of Rs. 3,82,88,000/- and two bank guarantees by way of performance security for Rs. 4,08,57,000/- and Rs. 63,85,500/-. It is also submitted that total 9 cases under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 were filed by the petitioner in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent-SHAJ from encashing the bank guarantee submitted in lieu of mobilization advance and also for performance security of Rs. 63,85,500/-, however, the same were subsequently withdrawn.
