NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 41 of 2023 Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Through Sh. K.K. Dhar Authorized Representative 37, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi ... Appellant Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. through DGM (Law) Ispatbhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 ... Respondent __________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 10.02.2025 Per , Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Heard on admission. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.02.10 17:08:02 +0530 as ‘the Act, 2015’), questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 17.07.2023, whereby, the Commercial Court (District Level), Raipur in Case No. Miscellaneous Judicial 04/2013 has refused to entertain the application filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1908), seeking restitution for the Bank Guarantee amounting to the tune of Rs. 7.95 crores along with its interest. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that vide award dated 10.02.2022, the concerned arbitrator while deciding the issue No. 4, has refused to grant the claimant-appellant for the refund of the alleged bank guarantee and, although the said award passed by the arbitrator has been set aside by the Commercial Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 in Arbitration M.J.C. No.09/2022, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’), but no entitlement as such was granted to the appellant-claimant. The conclusion made at Para 46 of the said order passed on 22.12.2022 reads as under: “46. In view of the discussions made herein-above, it is hereby observed that the findings returned by the Arbitral Tribunal granting loss/damages in favour of the respondent- SAIL are not supported by any evidence and would fall within the ambit of patent illegality and not mere erroneous application of law to evaluate damages. Therefore the impugned award is hereby set asided. Parties shall bear their own costs.” 3. Perusal of the aforesaid order would, thus, show that the award as passed by the arbitrator on 10.02.2022 has been set aside and no award as such is in existence authorising the appellant-claimant to get back the alleged amount of Bank Guarantee. 4. Be that as it may, the aforesaid order passed by the Commercial Court on 22.12.2022 has been assailed by both the parties in appeals, being Arbitration Appeal No. 09 of 2023 and 11 of 2023, under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and are pending under consideration, therefore, the Commercial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the said application filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 144 read with Section 151 of Code, 1908, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at admission stage itself. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Saurabh