Arbitration and Bank Guarantees: Supreme Court Rules on Enforcement of Foreign Bank Guarantees

The case of SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation vs. Power Mech Projects Ltd. is a crucial ruling concerning the enforcement of foreign bank guarantees in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Delhi High Court was justified in refusing to accept a bank guarantee from a scheduled foreign bank and instead insisting on a guarantee from a “Scheduled Indian Bank.”

This case arose from arbitration proceedings where SEPCO, a Chinese corporation, was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 30 crore in favor of Power Mech Projects Ltd. The dispute revolved around whether a guarantee from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), Mumbai Branch, could be accepted in place of a guarantee from a scheduled Indian bank.

Background of the Case

The case involved the following key facts:

Arbitral Award (2017): SEPCO was ordered to pay Power Mech Projects Ltd. approximately Rs. 142 crore.
Challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: SEPCO filed an application in the Delhi High Court challenging the award.
Interim Relief under Section 9: Power Mech Projects sought security for the award amount, leading the High Court to direct SEPCO to furnish a Rs. 30 crore bank guarantee.
Bank Guarantee from ICBC: SEPCO complied by providing an irrevocable guarantee from ICBC, Mumbai.
High Court’s Direction (2019): The Court insisted that SEPCO replace the ICBC guarantee with one from a “Scheduled Indian Bank.”
Division Bench’s Dismissal (2020): SEPCO’s appeal was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

SEPCO contended that:

ICBC is a “Scheduled Bank” under the Second Schedule of the RBI Act, 1934, and functions as a scheduled bank in India.
The RBI does not distinguish between “Scheduled Indian Banks” and “Scheduled Foreign Banks” for regulatory purposes.
Forcing SEPCO to replace the ICBC guarantee would result in unnecessary financial hardship.
The High Court exceeded its authority by imposing conditions beyond those necessary for securing the award.

Respondent’s Arguments

Power Mech Projects Ltd. argued that:

SEPCO had initially offered to provide a guarantee from a “Scheduled Indian Bank” and should be held to its commitment.
A guarantee from ICBC, a foreign bank, may pose enforcement difficulties.
The High Court’s insistence on a “Scheduled Indian Bank” was justified to ensure seamless enforcement.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court examined the following legal issues:

Whether ICBC, a foreign bank operating in India, qualifies as a “Scheduled Indian Bank.”
Whether the High Court had the authority to insist on a guarantee from a “Scheduled Indian Bank.”
Whether SEPCO’s compliance with the order by providing an ICBC guarantee was sufficient.
Whether there were legitimate concerns about enforceability of the ICBC guarantee.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made several important observations:

On the Definition of “Scheduled Bank”: The Court noted that ICBC is included in the Second Schedule of the RBI Act and functions as a scheduled bank.
On High Court’s Jurisdiction: The Court found that the High Court had no legal basis for distinguishing between a “Scheduled Indian Bank” and a “Scheduled Foreign Bank” for security purposes.
On Enforcement of ICBC Guarantee: The Court ruled that the ICBC guarantee was legally valid and enforceable under Indian law.
On Financial Burden: The Court noted that replacing the guarantee would impose an unnecessary financial burden on SEPCO.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and made the following rulings:

The direction to replace the ICBC guarantee was set aside.
The ICBC guarantee was deemed legally valid and enforceable.
The High Court’s approach of insisting on a “Scheduled Indian Bank” was unwarranted.
The judgment clarified that scheduled foreign banks operating in India have the same legal standing as scheduled Indian banks.

The Court concluded:

“The insistence on a Scheduled Indian Bank, in the absence of any statutory definition or regulatory requirement, was unwarranted. ICBC, being a scheduled bank, meets the criteria for furnishing a bank guarantee.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for arbitration enforcement and banking regulations:

Recognition of Foreign Bank Guarantees: Scheduled foreign banks operating in India have equal standing with Indian banks for issuing guarantees.
Judicial Restraint on Imposing Conditions: Courts cannot impose unnecessary conditions that create financial hardship for litigants.
Flexibility in Arbitration Proceedings: The judgment enhances the ease of doing business by allowing parties to furnish security from reputable foreign banks.
Clarification on RBI Regulations: The ruling affirms that the RBI does not distinguish between scheduled Indian banks and scheduled foreign banks for regulatory purposes.

Overall, the ruling strengthens India’s pro-arbitration framework and ensures that bank guarantees are evaluated based on their financial soundness rather than nationality.

Petitioner Name: SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation.
Respondent Name: Power Mech Projects Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 24-08-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sepco-electric-power-vs-power-mech-projects-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-08-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in International Arbitration
See all petitions in Commercial Arbitration
See all petitions in Enforcement of Awards
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category