Engineering Project (India) Limited and Others vs Ranchi Regional Development Authority and Others

I.A. No. 1623/2010 Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this interlocutory application the Appellants-applicants have prayed for temporary injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 1-3 (R.R.D.A) from invoking the Bank Guarantee No. 47/03 dated 15.10.03. It has been stated that after the decree was passed by learned Court below, the undertaking given by the said Respondents has come to an end. During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondents had given the undertaking that the Defendant-Respondent Nos. 1-3 will not invoke the Bank guarantee. Now since the Plaintiffs-Appellants'' suit has been dismissed, the Respondent Nos. 1-3 will not be bound by the said undertaking and there is chance of invoking the Bank guarantee.

Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted that the Plaintiffs-Appellants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the Bank guarantee is invoked by the Respondent;; and as such they may be restrained from invoking Bank guarantee during pendency of this appeal. Learned Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 1644 (SC) and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and contended that the principle laid down in the said decisions applies in the instant case.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1-3 submitted that the Bank guarantee is of definite amount and there is no question of suffering irreparable loss and injury by the Plaintiffs-Appellants. No ground for granting temporary injunction as such is made out by the Appellants. Similar relief was prayed for in the suit which after trial has been refused by learned Court below and suit has been dismissed. Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellants can get back their money, if the result of the appeal goes in their favour. The Respondent in a public authority and in a position to return the amount in case of any such decree of Court of law.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Plaintiffs-Appellants had filed Title Suit No. 99/04 praying relief for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1-3 from invoking and/or encashing the Bank Guarantee No. 47/03 dated 15.10.03 and receiving the amount from the Defendant-Respondent No. 4. The suit after trial has been dismissed. The Plaintiffs-Appellants have preferred this appeal against the decree of the Trial Court. The appeal has been admitted for hearing and is pending for final hearing. In this interlocutory application the Appellants have prayed for temporary injunction restraining the Respondents in the same term as was prayed for in the suit in the Court below. Admittedly, the Bank guarantee is of definite amount of Rs. 24 Lacs and odd. Encashment of the Bank guarantee would in no way, cause irreparable loss and injury to the Appellants. If the appeal is allowed, the Appellants can get back the counted amount of the Bank guarantee. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1-3 categorically submitted that in case the result of this appeal goes in favour of the Plaintiffs-Appellants and their claim is decreed, they will get their money back from them without any objection. In view of the above, I find no ground made out for allowing this interlocutory application, The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, referred to by learned Counsel for the Appellants are based on different facts and the same have got no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

This interlocutory application is, accordingly, rejected.