IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CARBC No. 5 of 2026 Decided on: August 5, 2026 ________________________________________________________ M/s Garg Songs Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral) By way of instant petition filed petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( as amended up to date), petitioner, has prayed for following main directions: (a) Direct the respondents to release the following guarantees/securities:- AWXIPBG233110003 Performance Bank Guarantee 1185120 FD No. 403238329789347/4 Performance Security 662966 FD No.2403238329889347/5 Retention Money 331483 Security Retained with Deptt. 75985 Retention Money Retained with Deptt. 151969 Total 2407523 (b) The respondents may also be directed by means of an ad-interim order to submit a list of its liquid assets with which it intends to pay the award amounts as per the directions of the learned Arbitral Tribunal; - 2 - (c) Pass an order, directing the respondents to deposit the amount as per the award dated 2.9.2025 and supplementary award dated 26.9.2025 along with the interest and costs” 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted by Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner is that since it is not in dispute, rather stands substantiated with the reading of award laid challenge by respondent- State in CARBC No. 2 of 2026, that bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 24,07,523/- was ordered to be released coupled with the fact that bank guarantees have been not renewed, prayer made by the petitioner for interim relief to the effect that bonds of the bank guarantees need to be returned, deserves to be accepted because with the release of bonds as detailed herein above, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents. 3. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondent-State, states that since award, by which bank guarantee was ordered to be released, has been laid challenge in CARBC No. 2 of 2026, interim relief, as prayed in the instant petition, cannot be accepted. However, Mr. Vasudeva, Deputy Advocate General, fairly admits that on account of non-renewal of bank guarantees, which were ordered to be released by virtue of impugned award, same cannot be encashed. He also fairly admits that bonds, which are sought to be released in instant petition, may not be of any use to the respondent-department because till the time bank guarantees are renewed, respondent-State cannot claim any amount qua the same. - 3 - 4. Having taken note of the fact that Awards dated 02.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 passed by learned Arbitrator have been laid challenge by respondent-State in CARBC No. 2 of 2026 and this Court in afore proceedings has stayed the operation of the same, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for release of the bonds of Bank Guarantee can be accepted subject to final outcome of CARBC No. 2 of 2026. Needless to say, in the event of CARBC No. 2 of 2026 being allowed, petitioners shall pay the amount of Bank Guarantee, alongwith appropriate interest to the respondent. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 5, 2026 Manjit