1 ( 2025:HHC:30014 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.415 of 2025 Decided on: 10.03.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beas Valley Power Corporation Limited …..Petitioner Versus SSJV Projects Private Limited .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Srishti Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner complains of violation by the respondent of the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by this Court in Arbitration Case No. 11/2008 as also the orders passed by learned Arbitral Tribunal on 14.12.2009 & 19.10.2013. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. In terms of order dated 21.07.2008 passed in Arbitration Case Nos. 11/2008 & 17/2008, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Certain other directions were also issued in the order, one of them being that present petitioner shall not invoke respondent’s bank guarantee and 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:30014 ) shall not remove the machinery from the site till the final decision of the arbitration proceedings. This was subject to respondent’s ensuring to keep alive the bank guarantees. Bank guarantees were not be allowed to lapse for a period of six months after the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. Subsequently, arbitration proceedings were initiated on 14.12.2009. Learned Arbitral Tribunal ordered for maintaining the bank guarantees alive and for their renewal/ extension well in advance before the expiry of their validity. It appears that four bank guarantees in Arbitration Case No. 11/2008 lapsed and learned Arbitral Tribunal vide detailed order passed on 19.10.2013, directed the respondent to provide valid enforceable bank guarantees afresh and to ensure that same remain alive till the period of six months after the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, failure to do so, was to result in petitioner’s right to encash and enforce the surviving bank guarantees at once. The directions were reiterated by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in the order passed on 17.12.2013. With the grievance that respondent had failed to renew eleven bank guarantees detailed in the petition, the present contempt petition was instituted. 3. Respondent has filed reply pleading therein that there had not been any intentional default on its part for 3 ( 2025:HHC:30014 ) renewing the bank guarantees. That it has been renewing bank guarantees from time to time even though, it was financially becoming difficult to do so. That the arbitral proceedings which had been directed under the order dated 21.07.2008 to be completed within specified period had otherwise continued for many years. The respondent had been renewing the bank guarantees but could not do so in the year 2024. In fact, respondent had requested the bank for keeping the bank guarantees alive after renewal, however, the petitioner did not send its request for renewing the bank guarantees within time. As a consequence, bank guarantees lapsed. 4. Be that as it may, it is an admitted case of both the parties that during pendency of this petition, final award was passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on 07.07.2025. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has not moved any application for execution of award for the reason that in proceedings initiated under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the respondent, Resolution Professional has been appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench vide order dated 04.07.2025 setting in moratorium. Para 16 of the order reads as under:- “16. Accordingly, the Company Petition is hereby admitted enjoining SSJV Projects Private Limited to undergo Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Simultaneously moratorium is declared under Section 4 ( 2025:HHC:30014 ) 14 of the Code. As a necessary consequences following prohibitions are imposed for being followed by all and sundry: (a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of ts property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (d) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor;” In view of moratorium declared by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and also considering the fact that award has also been passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal during pendency of the petition, which cannot be executed by the petitioner in view of declaration of moratorium, present contempt petition cannot be continued. Therefore, it stands disposed of at this stage. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy for redressal of its grievances. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 10, 2026 Judge yogesh