Tata-govt body bank guarantee case: HC refuses to intervene
The petition concerned the encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 167.46 crore by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), the nodal agency for driving IT growth and implementing IT and e-Governance initiatives in the state.
A division bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the petition filed by Tata Projects. The company sought restoration of the status quo ante, asking for the return of the Rs 167.46 crore to State Bank of India and the issuance of an identical bank guarantee.
Alternatively, Tata Projects requested CHiPS to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing account until the dispute's resolution.
According to court records, CHiPS had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Master System Integrator (MSI) for the BharatNet Phase-II Project in Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between Tata Projects and CHiPS during the commercial contract.
Previously, Tata Projects had filed writ petition, in which a single bench of the high court on 2 July 2024, granted interim protection, restraining respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee.
This writ petition was later disposed of on 30 April 2025, with the court re-delegating the parties to approach the commercial court.
Subsequently, Tata Projects filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The commercial court, on 3 May 2025, ordered an interim status quo regarding the invocation of the bank guarantee. However, after the respondents filed their reply, the commercial court disposed of the application on 6 May 2025, vacating the status quo order.
The initiation of the bank guarantee encashment process led Tata Projects to approach the high court.
Senior counsel Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for Tata Projects, argued that CHiPS's conduct was fraudulent and high-handed, misleading the court and misusing its power by attempting to invoke the bank guarantee.
Counsel for the respondents and the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Tata Projects had remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983.
The high court observed that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement and that Tata Projects had already approached the commercial court.
The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable at this juncture. However, it granted Tata Projects the liberty to pursue statutory remedies before the commercial court. The court also clarified that the respondents were free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of any application.
The High Court directed the commercial court to consider and decide any interim application or application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the law.
The high court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the commercial court to decide independently.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
4 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Crizac IPO fully subscribed on Day 2 on NII, retail push; GMP rises to 15%
The initial public offering (IPO) of Crizac Limited was fully subscribed on Day 2 of bidding, Thursday, July 3. ADVERTISEMENT The offer received bids for 2.73 crore shares against 2.58 crore shares on offer. Demand was led by non-institutional investors (NIIs), who subscribed 1.77 times their allocated quota, followed by retail investors at 1.31 times. The qualified institutional buyers (QIB) segment saw a subscription of 10%. In the grey market, Crizac shares were trading at a premium of Rs 36–39, up from Rs 22–25 on Day 1, indicating a grey market premium (GMP) of around 15%, compared to 9% earlier. The Rs 860 crore IPO is entirely an offer-for-sale (OFS) of 3.51 crore equity shares, priced in a band of Rs 233–245 per share. The issue closes on July 4, and the listing is expected on July 9 on both BSE and NSE. Founded in 2011, Crizac operates a B2B international education platform that connects universities in the UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand with a global network of over 10,000 student recruitment agents. It sources applications from more than 75 countries via its proprietary tech platform. The company has demonstrated robust growth — revenue rose from Rs 274 crore in FY23 to Rs 849 crore in FY25, marking a CAGR of 76%. Net profit grew from Rs 110 crore to Rs 152 crore over the same period. FY25 EPS stood at Rs 8.74, with a net margin of 18%. ADVERTISEMENT Crizac is a debt-free company with strong cash flows, reflecting a healthy balance sheet. At the upper price band, the IPO is valued at a P/E of 28x and P/B of 9x based on FY25 earnings — roughly in line with its listed peer IndiaMART. Analysts say Crizac is well-positioned to benefit from India's growing overseas education market, projected to cross 2.5 million outbound students by 2030. Its scalable B2B model, focus on Tier-1 geographies, and proprietary platform give it a unique edge. ADVERTISEMENT However, potential investors should monitor regulatory tightening in key markets like the UK and Canada, which could impact student inflows and growth momentum.'Crizac combines digital scale, a rising global education trend, and consistent financial performance — elements that long-term investors typically prize. Subscribe for long-term gains,' said Canara Bank Securities. (Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
News18
13 minutes ago
- News18
‘He Didn't Speak, He Barked': Shocking Case Of Neglected Thai Boy Goes Viral
The situation came to light when a school principal and a child rights activist raised concerns about the boy's condition. An eight-year-old boy in Thailand was found living alone with six dogs after being abandoned by his family for years. With no one else around him, the child learned to bark like the dogs. He had no access to school, social life or basic care. The situation came to light when a school principal and a child rights activist raised concerns about the boy's condition. According to a report in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the boy had been out of school for two years. But his mother had continued receiving a government education subsidy of about 400 baht (approximately Rs 1,050) meant to support his schooling. The funds were reportedly never used to enrol him in classes. According to neighbours, the boy's 46-year-old mother would often go out to beg for food and money in nearby villages and temples. She would leave the child alone at home, a small wooden house in Uttaradit province, northern Thailand. His only companions during this time were the six dogs kept by the family. Authorities visited the house after the school principal reached out to activist and politician Paveena Hongsakul. The home, built on stilts, was in very poor condition. Inside the house, police found the boy with his mother and his 23-year-old brother. Both adults tested positive for drug use. The child had been left alone and not looked after. 'He didn't speak, he just barked. It was pitiful to see," said Paveena, who is also the president of the Paveena Hongsakul Foundation for Children and Women. She led the rescue operation with local police. Officials said the boy had never attended kindergarten. He had once visited school at the age of Grade 1, but was never sent back. 'His mother hasn't allowed him to go to school since he received a subsidy for free education. After getting the money, she simply kept him at home," Paveena said. People in the neighbourhood also avoided letting their children play with the boy. They said they were disturbed by the family's behaviour. Without human contact, the child grew close to the dogs and started mimicking them. Barking became his way of communication. 'The house is in a red zone for drugs. The boy had no one, just the dogs to play with," said a local teacher as quoted by SCMP. The boy's mother and brother have now been charged with drug use and taken in for treatment. The child has been moved to a nearby children's shelter. Paveena's foundation is working with officials to make sure he gets proper schooling and long-term care.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
RPower, Reliance Infra shares tumble up to 5% after SBI flags RCom loan as fraud
Shares of Reliance Power and Reliance Infrastructure tumbled in Thursday's trade after the State Bank of India (SBI) classified the loan account of Reliance Communications (RCom) as fraud, implicating the company's former director, Anil Ambani, Times of India reported. Reliance Power slipped 4.8% to Rs 64.75, while Reliance Infra hit the 5% lower circuit at Rs 377.45 on the BSE. According to RCom's disclosure dated July 1, SBI has informed the company of its intent to report Anil Ambani's name to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), setting the stage for another legal battle amid the company's ongoing insolvency proceedings under the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The fraud classification is based on a 2020 forensic audit by BDO, which found irregularities and prompted SBI's internal panel to act. Canara Bank had earlier classified the loan as fraud in November 2024, but the Delhi High Court later set aside that order. In its latest review, concluded on June 13, SBI's committee highlighted financial irregularities, including the alleged diversion of Rs 12,692 crore — about 41% of the total Rs 31,580 crore in loans — to connected parties. The report cited misuse of sanctioned funds, routing money through subsidiaries to mask transactions, and circular funding via inter-corporate deposits and intraday limits. RCom, currently managed by a resolution professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), said the fraud classification would have 'NA' impact, citing protections available once a resolution plan is in place. Anil Ambani's legal team, Agarwal Law Associates, said SBI's action was passed ex parte and violated principles of natural justice. They argued that the show-cause notices were outdated under revised RBI norms, that Ambani held no executive role in the company's operations, and that the bank failed to share essential documents required for a proper response. The lawyers noted that similar notices had been withdrawn against other non-executive and independent directors, alleging Ambani had been unfairly singled out. They have requested the withdrawal of SBI's order and a personal hearing. The legal team also claimed the move defies several rulings by the Supreme Court, Bombay High Court, and RBI regulations, stating that Ambani's objections were ignored for nearly a year and that the bank failed to disclose the basis of its decision. ( Disclaimer : Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
