Grounds 6.5 and 6.6.

6.5. It is amply clear from the preceding paragraphs that, there has been no failure on part of the Petitioner in performing the obligations under the tender agreement.

According to clause 27.2 of the contract, the 

Respondent No. 3 has attempted to encash the said Bank Guarantees without any valid reason and therefore, such an encashment is illegal and wrongful. In the factual scenario of the present case, the balance of convenience exists in favour of the Petitioner and hence, the liquidation of the said Bank guarantees ought to be stayed.

6.6. That Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to encash the Bank guarantees. The invocation of clause 27 is unwarranted, illegal and fraudulent and if the Respondent No. 2 is allowed to liquidate the Bank guarantees then the Petitioner will certainly suffer huge and unbearable monetary and reputation loss.