Core Education And Technologies Ltd. Through Its Authorised Representative Anwar Ahmed Khan S/O Late Waseem Ahmed Khan Aged About 50 Year R/O B4/3130 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110070 vs. The State Of Haryana Through Its Chief Secretary

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12317/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-04-2014 in CWP No. 7979/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

$\mathbf{1}$

CORE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

(IA 47664/2017-APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION) WITH SLP(C) No. 18037/2014 (IV-B)

Date: 11-03-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

	For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Adv.<br>Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR<br>Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv.<br>Ms. Shruti Choudhry, Adv.<br>Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv.
	For Respondent(s)	Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, AAG<br>Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv.<br>Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv.<br>Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv.<br>Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
		Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR<br>Mr. Bharath Gangadharan, Adv.<br>Mr. Kauser Husain, Adv.<br>Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv

For Intervener Mr. Krishnayan Sen, AOR Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Adv. Not Verified

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Petitioner(s)

Respondent(s)

intervention (Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.) is allowed.

Counsel for the petitioner, Core Education and Technologies Ltd., submits that these petitions have become infructuous in view of the award passed by the Arbitrator on 7th December, 2018.

The only other issue that needs to be considered is about refund of a sum of Rs.12 crores deposited by the petitioner before this Court with accrued interest thereon and the bank guarantee given by the petitioner which was the subject matter of the writ petition.

As regards the deposited amount of Rs.12 crores and accrued interest thereon, it will be open to the parties to make a formal application for withdrawal thereof, which can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

Till the appropriate order is passed by this Court in that regard, the amount shall continue to remain in fixed deposit in this Court.

As regards the bank guarantee, counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is not alive. Counsel for the State Bank of India (Respondent No.4) also submits that the Bank is not liable to pay under the bank guarantee. On the other hand, counsel for the State of Haryana (Respondent No.1)

2

submits that the performance guarantee is alive in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court. We direct that if the bank guarantee is alive, status quo, as of today, shall be maintained for a period of three months. In the meantime, parties are free to take recourse to appropriate remedies inter se in that regard as per law.

In view of the above, nothing remains for our consideration in these special leave petitions and pending applications therein. The same stand disposed of with liberty to the parties as aforesaid.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER

(VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER