Interim protection against bank guarantee encashment continued pending Section 9 proceedings, with appellate and supervisory issues left open.

Interim restraint on invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee was considered in pending Section 9 proceedings, alongside questions on the availability of a Section 37(1)(b) appeal and the scope of Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction. The Court noted that arbitral proceedings had already commenced and that the Section 9 petition remained before the Commercial Court. It did not decide the broader legal questions on remedy or supervisory interference, leaving them expressly open. Interim protection against encashment of the bank guarantee was continued until the Commercial Court decided the Section 9 petition, and the parties were directed to proceed before that court within the time fixed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the Commercial Court's refusal of ex parte interim relief in the Section 9 proceedings could be entertained under Article 227, whether an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) was an available remedy, and whether interim protection against encashment of the bank guarantee should continue pending disposal of the Section 9 petition.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an interim order concerning restraint on invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee in pending Section 9 proceedings. The parties debated the availability of an appellate remedy, the scope of supervisory jurisdiction, and the limited circumstances in which bank guarantee encashment may be interdicted. The Court also noted that the arbitral process had already commenced and that the Section 9 petition was pending before the Commercial Court.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of without deciding the larger legal questions, which were expressly left open. The interim protection against encashment of the bank guarantee was maintained until the Commercial Court decided the Section 9 petition, and the parties were directed to proceed before that court within a fixed time.

---