JUDGMENT 1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : THE Court: GA No. 1394 of 2009 is an application by the respondent to the proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking, principally, a direction on the petitioner in the section 9 proceedings to renew certain bank guarantees that have now lapsed. 2. THE applicant is the National Highways Authority of India and the contract related to the construction or maintenance of a stretch of a national highway in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In AP No.239 of 2008, the contractor complains of a letter of December 31, 2007 by which the contract was sought to be terminated and the orders prayed for are as follows: a. Injunction restraining the respondent from giving any effect to and/or any further effect to and/or taking any step pursuant to the notice of termination purporting to bear the date 31st December, 2007 being annexure "CCC" hereof; b. Direction upon the respondent to forthwith pay the sum of Rs. 11,04,80,372/- due and payable to the petitioner, as more fully stated in paragraph 98 hereof; c. Alternatively, the respondent be directed to furnish security for the sum of Rs. 11,04,80,372/-; d. Injunction be issued restraining the respondent, its men, agents and servants from circulating the letter purporting to bear the date 31st December, 2007 and/or the contents thereof in any manner whatsoever; e. Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above; f. Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Upon such petition being received an order was made on May 15, 2008, the material part whereof needs to be noticed in its entirety: "Counsel for NHAI submits that in such contract value is of importance. Clause 53 empowers the respondent to terminate the contract for any of the fundamental breaches as stated under clause 53.2 of the said agreement. Therefore, under clause 53.2(h) and 53.2(i) the letter dated 31st December, 2007 has been issued. There is no scope to pass any interim order as the petitioner has filed the instant application after a delay of five months. Therefore, there is no urgency. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as on date. There is no scope to pass any interim order as the petitioner has filed the instant application after a delay of five months. Therefore, there is no urgency. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as on date. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties and this order will not debar the parties from relying on the letter dated 31st December, 2007. The parties will be free to agitate their claims and counter claims before the learned Arbitrator." 3. IT is the applicant's case that the parties understood the order of status quo (which, incidentally, did not specify the status that was required to be preserved) to imply that the bank guarantees that had been furnished by way of performance guarantees or the other bank guarantees that had been furnished on behalf of the contractor could not be encashed even if valid grounds existed or arose for encashing the same. The applicant says that, as a corollary, it was incumbent on the contractor to keep the bank guarantees alive till the order of status quo was vacated or till the reference was concluded. 4. IN furtherance of the applicant's contention that the parties understood the order of status quo as such, the applicant has referred to its letter of June 17, 2008 by which advocates representing the applicant wrote to advocates representing the contractor as follows: "Please note that in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the above matter, the parties have (sic, have been) directed to maintain status quo in respect of the notice of termination dated 31st December, 2007. We have been informed by our client that the following Bank Guarantees are expiring on the dates shown here in below: (Some particulars indicated) IN view of the above, you are requested to advise your clients to renew the bank guarantees for further period till the arbitration in the matter is disposed off (sic, of) by keeping the same valid. Copies of the said bank guarantees are enclosed for your ready reference, record and taking necessary steps in the matter." The applicant says that the letter of June 17, 2008 was issued almost within a month the order of status quo being made on May 15, 2008. Copies of the said bank guarantees are enclosed for your ready reference, record and taking necessary steps in the matter." The applicant says that the letter of June 17, 2008 was issued almost within a month the order of status quo being made on May 15, 2008. The applicant demonstrates that within a week of the demand, the bank guarantees were renewed and/or the due dates thereof were extended. The applicant was informed of the extension of the bank guarantees by a letter of June 24, 2008 issued by the contractor. 5. THE applicant suggests that if the contemporaneous understanding of the parties was that the order of status quo implied that the bank guarantees could not be invoked and were to be kept alive, the contractor was obliged to keep the bank guarantees renewed till such time that the order of status quo subsisted or, at the very least, till such time that the petition under section 9 of the 1996 Act was disposed of. 6. THE applicant refers to. subsequent requests made to the contractor to renew the bank guarantees and the almost stoic silence maintained by the contractor in such regard. As of now, according to the applicant, the bank guarantees have run out by efflux of time. It transpires that after the bank guarantees had expired, that the applicant mentioned the matter before the Arbitration Court on April 17, 2009. As is evident from the opening line of the order, the representation made to Court was that the contractor having obtained an order of status quo, it was required to keep the bank guarantees alive. The Court declined to make an order on the oral prayer. It was, however, observed that status quo in relation to the contract meant that things were to" remain as they were on the date of the order and that the bank guarantees that were alive as on the date of the order of status quo should have been kept alive and not allowed to expire. 7. THE applicant thereafter took out GA No. 1394 of 2009 for substantive orders though for reasons best known to the applicant it was made an appendage to AP No.239 of 2008 without an independent arbitration petition under section 9 of the said Act being filed. 7. THE applicant thereafter took out GA No. 1394 of 2009 for substantive orders though for reasons best known to the applicant it was made an appendage to AP No.239 of 2008 without an independent arbitration petition under section 9 of the said Act being filed. Around the same time, the contractor applied for recalling and/or setting aside the order dated April 17, 2009 passed when the matter was mentioned on behalf of the applicant herein. GA No. 1456 of 2009 was disposed of with the observation that it was misconceived in law and that the observations contained in the order dated April 17, 2009 were prima facie in nature and "could have no bearing on further/final reliefs in the proceedings." 8. AS far as GA No. 1394 of 2009 was concerned, by the same order of June 12, 2009 the Hon'ble Judge taking arbitration matters was of the view that such application had to be carried to, the Hon'ble Judge who had made the order of status quo on May 15, 2008. Ga No. 1394 of 2008 thereafter appeared before the Hon'ble Judge who made the order of May 15, 2008. Upon receiving the application, by an order of July 22, 2009 the following view was expressed: "On a reading of the order dated 15th May, 2008 and the relief sought in Ga No. 1394 of 2009, this Court is of the opinion that no clarification is needed. The spirit of the order dated 15th May, 2008 will be clear on a reading thereof and the relief sought in Ga No. 1394 of 2009 is independent and as no clarification is required, Ga No. 1394 of 2009 cannot be entertained by this Court and, is released. Accordingly, the matter be placed before the appropriate Court." 9. IT is thus that the application has bounced back to the Arbitration Court. 10. ON behalf of the contractor it is submitted that the reference has progressed and a counter-statement to the statement of claim has been filed by the applicant herein. A copy of the counter-statement has been appended to the contractor's affidavit in opposition to the application. The contractor points out that there is no counter-claim which is contained in the counter statement. A copy of the counter-statement has been appended to the contractor's affidavit in opposition to the application. The contractor points out that there is no counter-claim which is contained in the counter statement. It is the contractor's argument that if the applicant has no claim in terms of money against the contractor, the present application for renewing the bank guarantees could not have been made. The contractor says that in the body of the counter-statement there is no grievance indicated regarding the expiry of the several bank guarantees. An order of status quo should ordinarily define the status that being sought to be preserved. If the order of status quo does not define exactly what the Court intended to preserve, the import of the order has to be gleaned from the surrounding circumstances. The first of the aspects that has to be looked into to assess the expanse and scope of an unspecified order of status quo is the dispute that had been carried to Court following which the order of status quo was made. As will be evident from the prayers in AP No.239 of 2008 quoted above, the order of status quo could only have related to the first and fourth prayers as the other prayers were for payment of money and/ or in the nature of attachment for which the status quo order would have been inapplicable. After all it is not the applicant's case that because an order of status quo was made on a petition where attachment of money was sought, the bank accounts of the applicant could not be operated. 11. PRAYERS (a) and (d) of AP No. 239 of 2008 are confined to the letter of termination of December 31, 2007. A copy of the letter of termination appears as annexure "CCC" at page 272 of the petition relating to AP No.239 of 2008. In such letter there is no whisper of the applicant's right to invoke any bank guarantee. Even on an extended meaning given to prayer (a) and even by incorporating the contents of the letter dated December 31, 2007 into the body of prayer (a), the order of status quo of May 15, 2008 cannot be understood to imply that it extended to the bank guarantees. Prayer (d) relates to circulation of such letter and can have no nexus with the bank guarantees. 12. Prayer (d) relates to circulation of such letter and can have no nexus with the bank guarantees. 12. THE point remains as to the contemporaneous understanding of the parties on the effect of the order. It is of little relevance as to how parties to any proceedings understand or interpret an order. THE order has to be interpreted on the terms thereof and if the parties were to agree to confer a meaning to an order which is not apparent on a rational and reasonable reading thereof, such contemporaneous understanding will not alter the purport of the order. It is plain to see that the order of status quo made on May 15, 2008 did not extend to the other aspects relating to the transactions between the parties except in relation to the immediate grievance of the petitioner in AP No. 239 of 2008, which was the letter of termination of December 31, 2007. It then cannot be appreciated as to how the order of status quo could have been understood to have restrained the applicant from invoking the bank guarantees or it could have obliged the contractor to keep the bank guarantees renewed or alive. 13. THERE is a further aspect to the matter. Assuming, for a start, that the request made by the applicant to the contractor for renewing the bank guarantee was prior to the expiry thereof, the applicant should have been vigilant and should have assessed the contractor's stand on the matter. If the applicant's case is that the parties understood that the order of status quo would preserve the bank guarantees and would not permit the beneficiaries thereof to invoke the same, it was incumbent on the applicant to explore the extent of such understanding. The reasonable stand that the applicant could have taken was to ascertain from the contractor whether the bank guarantees would be renewed prior to the expiry thereof; and, if the contractor's stand was not clear, the applicant should then ought have invoked the bank guarantees if the applicant was entitled to the same. 14. A subsequent petition carried to Court (taking the oral mentioning to also be a petition to Court) cannot be an effective substitute for the enforcement of the substantial rights of the applicant that appear to have been waived by the applicant in the instant case. Application disposed of.