Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Xylem Water Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs Epc Construction India Ltd & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal15 July 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal allowed a clarification application and held that a bank guarantee, which was not expressly addressed in its earlier judgment dated 10.01.2022 due to a clerical error, stands discharged along with the counter guarantees, with the clarificatory order treated as part of that earlier judgment.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHII.A. No. 712 of 2022INCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1474 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Xylem Water Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant

Vs.

EPC Constructions India Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellant:- Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Shankar Mathur, Mr. Umang Katariya, Mr. Ajay Monga, Advocates. For Respondent:- Ms. Ranu Purohit, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Mr. Vishnu Kumar, Mr. Sahitya Krishna, Advocates for R-4. Chhavi Jain, Megha Rana, Advocates for EPC Construction India Ltd. ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

15.07.2022: The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Respondents are

present.

I.A. No. 712 of 2022 has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 / Kotak

Mahindra Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") in Company Appeal

(AT) (Ins.) No. 1474 of 2019 seeking clarification that the Bank Guarantee

issued by the Applicant also stands discharged in view of the fact that this

Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has discharged the Counter Guarantees issued by

the Respondent No. 5 and the said Bank Guarantee is directed to be returned

by the Beneficiary to the Applicant.

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant while referring to page no. 30 of the

I.A. showing the Performance Guarantee No. 402LG0858/13 dated

19.11.2013 submits that it should also be discharged. -2-

We have perused the judgment dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Bench.

It appears that due to clerical error, this fact has not been mentioned.

Therefore, I.A. No. 712 of 2022 is hereby allowed and the Bank Guarantee

preferred by the Respondent No. 3 (at page 30 of the I.A.) also stands

discharged. This order be considered as a part of the Judgment dated

10.01.2022.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

R.N./Kam./

I.A. No. 712 of 2022 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1474 of 2019

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free