Judgment This is an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act which was filed before this Court on 4.9.92. When the application was first moved before the learned Judge then taking arbitration matters, an order was passed being order dated 4.9.92 which was to the following effect :- "Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the urgency of the matter, it is ordered that there will an order of status-quo as of to-day till 8.9.92. Returnable on 7.9.92 irrespective of filing of the Affidavit-of-service. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking". 2. It has been submitted that the said order was thereafter continued on the returnab1e dates-though no order to that effect bas been produced before this Court. 3. Be that as it may the application has now come up for final hearing. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. caused an Affidavit-in Opposition to be filed being the affidavit affirmed by Kalyan Kumar Dutta on 9.11.92. 4. It appears that three bank guarantees were given Park Street branch of Vijaya Bank, in favour of the respondent Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. The particulars of the above bank guarantees are as hereunder :- Bank Guarantee No. 1/90 dated 19.1.90-Rs. 4, 10,678.35p. Bank Guarantee No. 2/90 dated 19.1.90-Rs. 3,73,OOO.OOp. Bank Guarantee No. 4/92 dated 25.2.92-Rs. 1,67,878.80p. 5. I understand that the period of the validity of the said bank guarantees was extended by the said bank and that the same were in force on or about 28.8.92. It also appears from the annexures to the petition that on 28.8.92 the respondent Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. wrote three several letters to the said Vijaya Bank asking for payment of the guarantee amounts represented by the said three several bank guarantees. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner Westend Industries & Erectors (P) Ltd. has submitted before me that the respondent was not entitled to encash the bank guarantees without terminating the contract. He has also submitted that it was his client who was entitled to some money on account of work done by him and that the respondent under the circumstances was not entitled to encash the bank guarantees. 7. He has also submitted that it was his client who was entitled to some money on account of work done by him and that the respondent under the circumstances was not entitled to encash the bank guarantees. 7. No case has been made out before me that there was any question of any fraud or of any special equities in favour of the petitioner Westend Industries & Erectors (P) Ltd. 8. There are series of judgments of the Supreme Court including the Judgments reported in (1) IT 1993 (6) SC 189, Svenska Handels bankers v. Indian Charge Chrome & Ors., & (2) 1988 (I) SCR 1124 , U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd., in which it has been held that a Court should not interfere with the encashment of bank guarantees unless there is a question of any established fraud or of special equity in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case, no such case has been made out in the petition. There is no question of any irretrievable injustice either to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner will in any event be entitled to recover its dues, if any, from the respondent in the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner's application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is pending before this Court and if the petitioner succeeds in the said application, the petitioner can always pray for inclusion of the claim, if any, in respect of the alleged wrongful encashment of the bank guarantees as is being sought to be alleged on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Furthermore, a bank guarantee issued by a bank in favour of the beneficiary is a contract between the bank and the beneficiary and it is entirely a matter between the banker issuing a bank guarantee and the beneficiary in whose favour the bank guarantee is issued. In the instant case, the respondent Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. had made a demand for encashment of the bank guarantees from the concerned bank. It is for the .concerned banker to decide as to whether they are bound to pay the money as per the bank guarantees or not. 10. In my opinion, no case has been made out for issuance of any order of injunction as against the respondent restraining the respondent from encashing the concerned bank guarantees. 11. This application is, therefore, dismissed. 10. In my opinion, no case has been made out for issuance of any order of injunction as against the respondent restraining the respondent from encashing the concerned bank guarantees. 11. This application is, therefore, dismissed. All interim orders including the order dated 4.9.92 and for the order for continuation of the said order if any are vacated. The concerned banker namely vijaya Bank Park Street, Calcutta branch will be at liberty to make its own decision in respect of the demands made by the said M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. from the said banker on the basis as if there is no order of restraint by this Court either against the respondent herein or against the said banker in making their own decision in the matter of payment of the aforesaid bank guarantee amounts. Costs will be the cost in the arbitration proceedings. The parties will be at liberty to obtain signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking.