1) IIT Roorkee has refused to return bank guarantee amount to you In flagrant violation of court orders

2) although appeal against order has been dismissed by HC IIT Roorkee has refused to comply with said order

3) you should take out contempt of court proceedings against IT Roorkee for failing to comply with order of trial court as upheld by HC

Contempt petition should be filed in HC

2) notice would be issued to Respondents

3) in order to avoid admission of contempt petition the respondents would comply with order and return the BG amount wrongly encashed by them

You should have filed petition for Review if there is human/typing error.

Anyway to implement the order you have to file the contempt petition in the same court which passed the order in writ petition.

If that Judge has retired or not available then only other JUDGE would be assigned to deal with such petition.

So file contempt petition immediately but get the appeal disposed of in the meantime.

1. What order did you receive against your application filed before the High court for modification of the appeal order?

2. Actually, you should have filed a Contempt Petition for not complying the order passed by the High Court implicating the people of IIT- Roorkee involved in the matter.

1. The lower Court order was clear which was held by the High Court.

2. File a Contempt of Court petition as stated above for not complying with the court order.

Contempt petition is the only remedy as there is contempt on the part of IIT-Roorkee. You should never have gone to the HC after the contempt was committed. By moving the HC again you complicated the issue further and gave en escape route to IIT. When the order of the HC dated 27.8.16 was terse but crystal clear, wherein it dismissed the appeal of IIT at threshold, any contempt committed in pursuance thereof was actionable through a contempt petition before the ADJ. There was no clarification to be sought as the order of ADJ had been upheld in totality by the HC. It was, prima facie, a misconceived move to go back to HC. Be that as it may, now file contempt before ADJ.

what economical options we have to get restoration of our money?

If you are aggrieved by the decision of court, you may prefer an appeal against the judgment.

2. We had designed, supplied, commissioned a multi-fan wind tunnel for IIT-Roorkee having project cost 7 Crore

3. The inspection report / Minutes of Meeting dated [deleted] was key issue of dispute demanding all 110 fans running at 6000 rpm. As a threat for encashment of 55% BG on [deleted] was also included in that MoM which was to be returned on commissioning.

4. We had submitted our reply on [deleted] and were expecting immediate reply on that.

5. We had not received any reply till [deleted] evening, so we had proceeded for stay on BG in Hon’ble court as per section-9 of Arbitration act.

6. The stay was granted by the Hon’ble lower court and then BG was extended for one month.

Due to mistake of Hon’ble court by not clearly mentioning extension of stay, IIT-Roorkee had encashed the BG of 3.84 crore on [deleted].

When did you notice the mistake and what action you had taken immediately on this lapse. Who was on fault for having not extended th stay/

7. Arbitration was formally opened in May 2015 and is continued in last phase.

8. We had applied for restoration of BG and return of our funds u/s 151 on [deleted].

9. The Hon’ble ADJ-II in the order dated [deleted] clearly recorded that our prayer application 42g (for restoration of status-quo ante) is allowed and that the IIT-Roorkee was directed to return to us the amount of the encashed Bank Guarantee, which was encashed inspite of the stay order of the court, with-in 1 month to the concerned bank for restoration of status-quo ante of the Bank Guarantee as was at the time of interim order before encashment, misc case 18/2015.

10. IIT-Roorkee then approached the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand and appealed against the above order vide AO 448/2016 on 26 August 2016. The same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 27 August 2016 by ordering “In view of what has been set forth above, I feel that the action of the appellant to encash the bank guarantee is highly arbitrary and in disregard of law. I refuse to interfere with the impugned order. This appeal has no force and it is dismissed at the very threshold.”

The order further stated that “It is ordered that the bank guarantee shall remain extended till the matter is finally decided by the arbitrator. Such bank guarantee shall remain invested as TDR in the bank.”

11. In compliance of the above orders, IIT Roorkee submitted the photocopy of a TDR in its own favor which does not in any way amounts to restoration of status-quo ante under Section 151 and is in contradiction to what has been stated in the above mentioned orders. It is pertinent to mention that the original BG was made by us invocable by Registrar IIT Roorkee the status of which was ordered to be restored by the order of the Hon’ble Second Additional District Judge and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court by dismissal of appeal made by IIT Roorkee.

12. An application was moved by us in the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand for modification of the appeal order but what has been ordered in MCC 632/2016 does not in anyway bring justice to us in form of correction of the “mistake” by restoration of status-quo.

Actually the high court order while dismissing the appeal is very clear whereas IIT Roorkee has made a wrong move by making the TDR on its own name, hence the IIT has to be pulled by filing a petition to this effect in the lower court and seek an order for transferring the TDR to its original form.

13. The self contradictory clarification in MCC 632/2016 brought down by the Hon’ble High Court at first reaffirms the fact that the status-quo ante was to be restored by stating “… sustained the order of Lower Court …”. However, the statement “Pursuant to such order of this Court, the Registrar, IIT, Roorkee, invested the amount of Rs.3,84,29,692/- in TDR with Union Bank of India, Branch at Roorkee, in its name” does not in any way amounts to sustenance of the order of ‘Lower Court’ which clearly ordered restoration of status-quo ante and the appeal of which was dismissed by this very court. On the contrary, this statement contradicts the restoration of status-quo ante and gives weight to the incorrect interpretation of the IIT Roorkee.

You can file an IA to rectify this error by IIT and to make deposit to the account as per the original judgment of lower court.

The high court order is clear it has to be made in TDR, so on whose name is the question?

Basic question was how can we get restoration and our money back. Filing contempt will not return our money.

So what is the option for restoration? Where should we file contempt?

The fact is that you cannot get your money back without disposal of the main case, so you dont have any grounds to fight the high court order, you may discuss with your advocate on this point.