K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Public Undertaking, has filedthis suit for the following reliefs:- " (A) declare that the alleged notice dated 13th January, 1996 issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner being illegal, void and inoperative, quash and set aside the said letter/ notice. (b) declare that the letter dated 2nd February, 1996 of respondent No. 1 determining the contract are illegal, void, excessive, inoperative and quash and set aside the said letter. (c) issue an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1, their agents, servants and employees from acting pursuant to letter dated 13th January, 1996 and 2nd February, 1996 there by (i) direct the respondent not to enter the site pursuant to their letter dated 2nd February, 1996. (ii) direct respondent no. 1 not to invoke the two bank guarantees furnished by respondent No. 2 on behalf of petitioner details whereof are given in para 19 of the plaint. (iii) direct the respondent No. 2 not to encash the abovesaid bank guarantees pursuant to any request being made by respondent No. 1. "pending, the suit, I. A. 1758/96 is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for the following reliefs:- "a) Grant interim injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from invoking the 2 Bank Guarantees referred in para. . . . of this application. b) Grant interim injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from giving to respondent No. 1 the proceeds of the 2 Bank Guarantees referred to in para above. "it may be noticed that in the relief portion, there are blanks. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. , a Government of India Undertaking, required specialised services for the construction of 2 x 500 MW HVDC for its project located near the town of Bhardrawati in the State of Maharashtra in Chandrapur District. First respondent M/s. . GEC Alsthom HVDC India Ltd. invited tenders and after shortlisting the bidders, the work eventually was awarded to the petitioner and the third respondent M/s. Damodartech International (P) Limited. The petitioner was awarded the work of civil engineering and building works while the electrical and mechanical component of the work was to be performed by the third respondent. On 17th of February 1995 there was a contract between the parties. The petitioner was awarded the work of civil engineering and building works while the electrical and mechanical component of the work was to be performed by the third respondent. On 17th of February 1995 there was a contract between the parties. In the plaint in paragraph 7 the details of the work to be done are given and also other details of the work are also mentioned in the plaint. According to the petitioner, first respondent did not act in accordance with the terms of the contractual obligations and they committed breach of the terms thereof. After referring to the various disputes that had arisen between the parties, the petitioner has mentioned that the first respondent is trying to invoke the bank guarantee given by the petitioner. The case in short of the petitioner is that if all facts are considered and all accounts are taken, the petitioner is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2. 96 crores from the first respondent and, therefore, the first respondent is not within its rights in invoking the bank guarantee. The, first respondent filed the reply repudiating the claim of the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India about the scope of the power of the Court in interdicting the encashment of the bank guarantees, I don t think I will be justified in going into the rival contentions of the parties and give a finding on the question whether the petitioner is in breach or the first respondent has committed violation of the terms and conditions of the contact. ( 4 ) THE Learned Attorney General of India brought to my notice several facts showing, according to him first respondent owed money to the petitioner and, therefore, the first respondent cannot invoke the bank guarantees and therfore the petitioner is justified in asking for the reliefs prayed for in the plaint in the I. A. ( 5 ) THE learned senior counsel for the first respondent Mr. Kapil Sibal submitted that the question raised by the learned Attorney General is a question of fact which could be decided only after taking evidence and now at the stage that cannot be gone into and the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in this behalf. Kapil Sibal submitted that the question raised by the learned Attorney General is a question of fact which could be decided only after taking evidence and now at the stage that cannot be gone into and the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in this behalf. ( 6 ) THE learned Attorney General relied upon ELIAN AND RABBATH (TRADING AS ELLAN and RABBATH) vs MATSAS AND MATASAS, (1966) Vol. 2 Law Reports 495 for the proposition that inspite of the general principle that no injunction can be granted, in a special case injunction can be granted. According to the learned Attorney General, the petitioner in this case has made out a special case and, therefore, injunction should be granted, hi die light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeal in England cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE learned Attorney General invited my attention to a judgment of the United States District Court ITEK CORPORATION vs The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, et al, 566 Federal Supplement 1210. I feel that I should not deal with this judgment when we have the judgment of the Supreme Court covering the point completely. 8. The learned Attorney General. also relied upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal in UNITED TRADING CORPORATION S. A. AND MURRAY CLAYTON LTD. vs ALLIED ARAB BANK LTD. AND OTHERS, (1985) Volume 2 Lloyd s-Law Reports 554. This is also not of any help to the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE learned Attorney General relied upon the judgment of this Court in Nangia Construction (India) Ltd. vs International Airport Authority of India and others, 1992 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 372. This judgment was rendered in an interlocutory application pending the suit. The learned Judge had come to the conclusion that with reference to a particular portion of the guarantee to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh, the International Airport Authority, who was the respondent cannot enforce the bank guarantee. The learned Judge has not laid down in ratio which could be of any help to the applicant in this case. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in the following cases had laid down that unless there is irretrievable injustice there can be no case for grant of injunction:- 1. The learned Judge has not laid down in ratio which could be of any help to the applicant in this case. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in the following cases had laid down that unless there is irretrievable injustice there can be no case for grant of injunction:- 1. United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India and others, (1981)2 SCC 766 . 2. U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. , (1988)1 SCC 174 . 3. General Electric Technical Services Co. Inc. vs. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. and another, (1991) 4 SCC 230 . 4. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s. Flowmore Private Ltd. , JT 1995 (5) S. C. 590. 5. Larsenand Toubro Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others, JT 1995 (7) SC 18. ( 11 ) IN the last case, the Supreme Court reiterating the principles had said :- "before we adjudicate the rival plea urged before us by counsel for the parties, it will be useful to bear in mind the salient principles to be borne in mind by the Court in the matter of grant of injunction against the enforcement of a Bank Guarantee/ irrevocable Letter of Credit. After survey of me earlier decisions of this Court in United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and others, 1981 (2) SCC 766 , U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. , 1988 (1) SCC 174 , General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. v. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. and another, 1991 (4) SCC 230 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Elian and Rabbath v. Matsas and Matsas 1966 (2) Lloyd s Report 495 and a few American decisions, this Court in Svenska Handelsbanken v. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome And Others, 1994 (1) SCC 502 , laid down the law thus:- ". . . . . in case of confirmed bank guarantees/irrevocable letters of credit, it cannot be interfered with unless there is fraud and irretrievable injustice involved in the case and fraud has to be an established fraud. . . . . . " (p. 523) ". . . irretrievable injustice which was made the basis for grant of injunction really was on the ground that the guarantee was not encashable on its terms. . . . " (p. 524) ". . . . . . . . . . " (p. 523) ". . . irretrievable injustice which was made the basis for grant of injunction really was on the ground that the guarantee was not encashable on its terms. . . . " (p. 524) ". . . . . there should be prima facie case of fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties. Mere irretrievabia injustice without prima facie case of established fraud is of no consequence in restraining the encashment of bank guarantee. . . . " (pp. 526-527 ). ". ( 12 ) FOR all these reasons, the petitioner-applicant has not made out any, prima facie, strong case for the grant of injunction. Therefore, the application for injunction is dismissed. S. No. 442/96 Written statement he filed within 8 weeks. Post the matter on 17th of October 1996.