J. B. Goel,j. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) Filed by the petitioner/contractor to restrain the respondent from encashing the bank guarantees No. 317/92 to 326/92 and 451/92 to 458/92 issued by Canara Bank, Janpath, New Delhi on behalf of the petitioner which are sought to be invoked by the respondent, beneficiary in their letters dated 20. 12. 1996/23. 12. 1996. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent is a Society which was setting up an office complex for Public Sector undertakings at Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi. The petitioner was awarded a contract for excution of the work of Internal electrification and Sub Station work at the said Complex. The contract between the parties was executed on 28. 10. 1988. The total value of the work was Rs. 6,85,62,217. 70. The work was to be completed within a period of 20 months, i. e. , by the end of June, 1990. The work was delayed and could not becompleted within the stipulated period. Only the work of the value of Rs. 7. 30 Lacs could be executed. A supplementary agreement was also executed on 20. 3. 1991 between the parties. ( 3 ) IT appears that the contract was not terminated and the petitioner continued with the work. During the pendency of the work the petitioner approached the respondent vide letter dated July 16, 1992 (Annexure R-2) for sanction of a special interest free advance of Rs. 1. 25 Crores for arranging material for the execution of the work on the plea that due to severe cash flow problem they were not having funds to finance the purchase of equipment required for the project and also due to escalation in the cost of material. ( 4 ) WITHOUT admitting their obligation/liability, the respondent vide their letter dated August 17, 1992 (Annexure R-3) agreed to give Special Advance of Rs. 60 Lacs on the conditions that (1) on providing an unconditional and irrevocable Bank Guarantee in the prescribed format to be kept alive till the amount was realised encashabic on demand by SCOPE in case of nonfulfilment of any of the relevant conditions of the guarantee or breach of any conditions of the Agreement and Supplementary. Agreement. 60 Lacs on the conditions that (1) on providing an unconditional and irrevocable Bank Guarantee in the prescribed format to be kept alive till the amount was realised encashabic on demand by SCOPE in case of nonfulfilment of any of the relevant conditions of the guarantee or breach of any conditions of the Agreement and Supplementary. Agreement. (2) That the repayment/recovery/adjustment of this adhoc advance shall be in stages as decided by SCOPE starling after nine months of the date of release of the adhoc advance and the full repayment/recovery shall be completed by the settlement of the Final bill. In the event of the full amount not being able to be recovered from amount of the final bill by encashment of the Bank Guarantee; (3) That in the event of failing to execute a minimum work of 2/3rd value of the amount of adhoc advance within 4 months of the dale of release of this advance, then the entire adhoc advance or any part thereof shall be recovered from the admitted dues, if any, or by encashing the Bank Guarantee, and be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for this period. (4) and a detailed programme for the completion of the balance work. including physical execution of minimum quantified critical items of work as specified targets as worked out by the Architects taking into consideration discussion with petitioners, other Contractors and programmes submitted by all contractors so as to complete the work without further delay and to implement this programme so as to complete total work within eleven and half months of issue of this letter and two months thereafter for testing and Final commissioning. ( 5 ) IT appears that these conditions were accepted and the petitioner had furnished various Bank guarantees of Rs. 5 lacs each of the total amount of Rs. 60 lacs issued by Canara Bank, Janpath Branch, New Delhi on 24. 9. 1992. ( 6 ) APPARENTLY, on the request of the petitioner the respondent in their letter dated 23. 12. 1992 (Annexure R-4) further agreed to advance another advance of Rs. 42 Lacs on the following conditions: "1) The work shall be executed in such a manner so that the minimum cumulative value of total executed work (as certified by the Architects) on 28. 2. 1993 shall amount to Rs. 3. 4 Crorcs and, on 15. 05. 12. 1992 (Annexure R-4) further agreed to advance another advance of Rs. 42 Lacs on the following conditions: "1) The work shall be executed in such a manner so that the minimum cumulative value of total executed work (as certified by the Architects) on 28. 2. 1993 shall amount to Rs. 3. 4 Crorcs and, on 15. 05. 93 shall amount to Rs. 4. 1 Crores. 2) Against an irrevocable Bank Guarantee in an approved format. 3 ). This second installment of special advance would be a part of total special advance, to be recovered simultaneously with recovery of First installment of advance so as to complete the recovery of the full advance of Rs. 102 Lacs progressively as stipulated in conditions on the basis of which First installment of Rs. 60. 00 Lakhs was released to you. In the event of your failing to achieve the above said evaluation targets certified by the Architects for executed works upto 28. 02. 1993 and 15. 05. 1993, then this second installment of advance shall be recovered by encashing the Bank Guarantee. However, in case stipulated value for 28th February, 1993 is achieved but fail to achieve minimum stipulated value as required to be achieved by 15th May, 1993, then the encashment of the Bank Guarantee shall be limited to an amount of Rs. . 37. 00 Lakhs out, of the total bank Guarantee of Rs. 42 Lakhs; 4) The recovery of this second installment of special advance shall be simultaneous with the recovery of first installment of special advance and shall begoverned by the stipulations on basis of which First installment of * special advance was released, unless otherwise stipulated in this letter. ( 7 ) ALL conditions including payment/recovery/adjustment of this second installment of advance shall be covered by the stipulation as governing the release of the First installment of Rs. 60. 00 lakhs. A detailed programme for completion of the balance work will be signed. It appears that this was also accepted by the petitioner and this amount was also released by the respondent on the petitioner s furnishing various Bank guarantees of this amount issued by the same Bank on 24. 12. 1992. In all outstanding 18 such Bank Guarantees arc Annexures P-4 to P-21, First ten dated 24. 9. 1992 and the latter eight dated 24. 12. 1992 seventeen being in the. sum of Rs. 12. 1992. In all outstanding 18 such Bank Guarantees arc Annexures P-4 to P-21, First ten dated 24. 9. 1992 and the latter eight dated 24. 12. 1992 seventeen being in the. sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs each and one in the sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs bearing Nos. 317/92 to 326/92 and 451/92 to 458/92 given by Canara Bank, Janpath, New Delhi. These bank Guarantees are in identical terms. The work was not executed as agreed and the respondent had given a Show cause Notice dated 18. 8. 1993 (Annexure R-5) "for invoking the Bank Guarantees. However, these were not actually invoked at that time. Earlier disputes had arisen between the parties which were referred to two arbitrators one each nominated by the parties who gave an Award in the sum of Rs. 4,17,30,000. 00 on 30. 3. 1994 in favour of the petitioner. After this award was given a second supplementary agreement dated 23. 8. 1994 was executed between the parties interalia agreeing to the mode of payment of the amounts due under the Award and it was also agreed that the petitioner will complete the work upto 15. 7. 1995 and Testing and Commissioning shall be completed by 15. 9. 1995. According to the respondent after August, 1994 till date work of the value of. Rs. 21 Lakhs only has been executed and only an amount of Rs. 10. 14 Lakhs has been adjusted and recovered from the bills and the balance amount about Rs. 91. 86 Lakhs out of the advance of Rs. 102 Lakhs still remains due from the petitioner to the respondent. It is for the recovery of this balance amount that the respondent have invoked the Bank Guarantees and demanded payment of Rs. 91,86,473- under their letters dated 20. 12. 1996 (Annexure P-29) and repeat letter dated 23. 12. 1996 (Annexure R- 11 ). The petitioner has alleged that the work could not be completed within the stipulate period, i. e. , by 15. 9. 1995 on account of consistent failures on the part of the respondent in not making available the required work fronts, decisions and the payments due in terms of contract against bills No. 36 and 37 for the work done of over Rs. 61,80,309. 00 and of escalation bill No. 17, dated 17. 9. 1996 of Rs. l,12,09,675. 00 have not been released. 61,80,309. 00 and of escalation bill No. 17, dated 17. 9. 1996 of Rs. l,12,09,675. 00 have not been released. ( 8 ) DISPUTES between the parties have again be referred to two arbitrators, Mr. Justice M. L. Bhatt nominated by the petitioner and Shri H. D. Dandage, appointed by the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the amount due could be recovered in stages from the Running Bills upto Final Bill and that stage has not reached. Even otherwise after adjusting various payments due as per aforesaid bills a sum of over Rs. 87 Lakhs is outstanding due from the respondent and so invoking of the bank guarantee is unjustified, arbitrary, illegal in violation of the terms of the bank guarantees and the terms of contract between the parties, an attempt to unduly enrich themselves and is fraudulent. ( 9 ) THE respondent in reply has alleged that the two loans of Rs. 102 Lakhs were given in the interest of the work being completed without delay. This amount was to be realised by adjustment out of the bills submitted for the work done within the stipulated period and as the work target was not achieved, the amount remained unadjusted; that even according to second supplementary agreement, dated 23. 8. 1994, the time for completing of work was 15. 9. 1995 whereas uptill now the petitioner had executed work of the value of Rs. 21 Lakhs only as per bills No. 35 and 36 and out of these bills only Rs. 10. 14. Lakhs could be adjusted leaving a balance of about Rs. 91. 86 Lakhs; as regards the bill No. 37 dated 26. 9. 1996 and escalation bill these were not correctly drawn and were returned by their Architect who was authorised to verify and certify for payment. As such nothing is payable nor anything was recovered or adjusted against these two bills. The balance payment has not been paid inspite of several demands, reminders and inspite of the fact that it was agreed in the meeting on 31. 7. 1996 (Annexure R-8) that the total Special advance shall be adjusted by 30th No- vember, 1996 by deducting "40% of amount payable or a minimum of Rs. 10 Lakhs per bill. The petitioner has, practically done no work thereafter and. the balance amount of advance remained unadjusted. 7. 1996 (Annexure R-8) that the total Special advance shall be adjusted by 30th No- vember, 1996 by deducting "40% of amount payable or a minimum of Rs. 10 Lakhs per bill. The petitioner has, practically done no work thereafter and. the balance amount of advance remained unadjusted. In the circumstances, there was no alternative and the respondent had acted within their right in invoking the bank guarantees. This is apart from the fact that the petitioner is liable to pay liquidated damages for the delay and defaults on their part. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that (1) amount advanced was to be adjusted in stages from the running bills and final payment due was to be adjusted on the settlement of the final Bill and it was only in case the amount could not be so recovered that the bank guarantee could be encashed, that as the execution of the work is still in progress, the stage of final bill and adjustment has not reached; that the work could not be executed in time because of defaults on the part of the respondent; the invocation of the bank guarantees, in the circumstances, is contrary to the terms of the agreement, is fraudulent, illegal and unjust resulting in irretrievable injury and there are special equities warranting restraining from invoking the bank guarantees. It is also contended that the respondent has withheld over Rs. 17 Lakhs due from the petitioner out of the Bills and this fact has been suppressed at the time of invoking the Bank guarantees and for that reason also, the invocation is fraudulent which fact disentitles their invocation. He has placed reliance on State Trading Corporation Vs. fainsons Clothing Corporation and Am. JT 1995 (5) SC 403; Hindustan Steel Works Construction Vs. Tarapore and Co. and Am. J. T. 1996 (6) SC 295. M/s. Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. Vs. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. and Am. JT 1996 (7) SC 336; Mis. Bannerjeeand Bannerjee Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and Am. AIR 1986 Calcutta 374 and Mis. Synthetic Figments Ltd. Vs. Mis. Simplex Concrete Piles (P) Ltd. AIR 1988 Delhi 207. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Bank guarantees are independent contracts and main contractis not relevant. JT 1996 (7) SC 336; Mis. Bannerjeeand Bannerjee Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and Am. AIR 1986 Calcutta 374 and Mis. Synthetic Figments Ltd. Vs. Mis. Simplex Concrete Piles (P) Ltd. AIR 1988 Delhi 207. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Bank guarantees are independent contracts and main contractis not relevant. The bank Guarantees have been invoked as per terms of the bank guarantee and no case is made out to disentitle the respondent to do so; the action of the respondent is neither fraudulent nor irretrievable injustice will be caused to the petitioner nor there are special equities in their favour and as such the petitioner is not entitled to seek restraint against invocation of the bank guarantees. Reliance has been placed on United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India AIR 1981 SC 1426 , National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hind Electric Engineering Co. and Am. AIR 1990 Calcutta 421; General Electric Co. Technical Services Co. Inc. Vs: Punj Sons Pvt. ltd. and Am. 1991 (4) SCC 230 ; JT 1995 (5) SC 403; National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Flow More Pvt. ltd. and Anr. 1995 (84 Company Cases 97 (SC); Mis. Coronation Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gujrat heavy Chemicals Ltd. and Am. 1996 (1) Ad Delhi 346 and Hindustan Steel Works Ltd. and Am. Vs. Mis. Tarapore and Co. and Am. JT 1996 (6) SC295. As already noticed the respondent had agreed to give the said advance on the terms and conditions mentioned in their letters dated 17. 8. 1992 (Annexure R-3) and dated 23. 12. 1992 (Annexure R-4 ). And the amount was released on furnishing of various bank guarantees by the petitioner wherein the conditions for invoking the bank guarantees are mentioned. Outstanding bank guarantees are Annexures P-4 to P-21, these arc in identical terms. Material terms of the Bank guarantee read as under: "now this bank guararantee witnesseth that, in consideration of the beneficiary having agreed to grant a special advance of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Contractor we, Canara bank, do hereby guarantee unto the beneficiary due repayment of the said special advance amount of Rs. Material terms of the Bank guarantee read as under: "now this bank guararantee witnesseth that, in consideration of the beneficiary having agreed to grant a special advance of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Contractor we, Canara bank, do hereby guarantee unto the beneficiary due repayment of the said special advance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and every part thereof and undertake that we, the Bank hereby unconditionally and irrevocably undertake to pay to the beneficiary immediately on its first demand and without any delay, demur, reservations, recourse, contest or protest and/or without any reference to the contractor an amount not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs or any part thereof as may be stated in any notice (s) of demand addressed to the Bank by or on behalf of beneficiary and notice (s) of the demand from or on behalf of the beneficiary staling that the contractor has committed default in repayment of the advanced amount or any part thereof shall be final, conclusive and binding on us. Notwithstanding anything stated elsewhere in this guarantee we, the Bank further agree that: (1) The beneficiary shall be the sole judge to decide as to whether the contractor has or has not, repaid or adjusted the said advance amount or any part thereof and the decision of the beneficiary in this behalf shall be final, conclusive and binding on us. Any demand (s) from or on behalf of the beneficiary, on the basis that the Contractor defaulted in repayment of the advanced amount or any part thereof, as the case may be, there shall be conclusive, final and binding on us and we shall immediately make payment to the Beneficiary on his giving us the said notice (s) of demand notwithstanding any dispute (s) or difference (s) between the beneficiary and the contractor (s) or any dispute pending before any Court (s) Tribunal (s), Arbitrators) or any other authority and without reference to the Contractor. 2. xx 3. The beneficiary shall have. 2. xx 3. The beneficiary shall have. fullest liberty without affecting in any way the liability of the Bank under this guarantee from time to time, to vary any of the terms and conditions of the contract to extend the time for performance of the contract by the Contractor, to postpone for anytime, or from time to time, the exercise of any powers vested in him or of any right which the beneficiary might have against the Contractor, and to exercise the same at any time in any manner and cither to enforce or to forbear to enforce any covenants, contained or implied, in the contract or any other course of remedy or security available to the beneficiary. . . . . . xxxx ( 10 ) THIS guarantee shall be in addition to and not in substitution or derogation to any other guarantee or security available to the beneficiary in respect of the said contract. " xxxx x" The outstanding bank guarantees are of the total amount of Rs. 92 Lakhs and are invoked by the respondent vide their letters dated December 20, 1996 (Annexure P. 29) followed by another letter of December 23, 1996 (Annexure R-11) in the sum of Rs. 91,86,473. 00 in the following terms: "x xxxx x" Now we hereby demand from you the sum of Rs. 91,86,473. 00 (Rupees ninety one Lakhs eighty six thousand four hundred seventy three) and we state that the said Contractor has committed default in repayment of the said advance amount to the extent of Rs. 91,86,473. 00 (Rupees ninety one Lakhs eighty six. thousand four hundred seventy three only ). xxxx x x" The principles governing the invocation of the bank guarantees are well settled. These have been reaffirmed in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Ansal Engineering Project Ltd. Vs. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. J. . T. 1996 (7) SC 336 where it has been laid down as under: "4 It is settled law that bank guarantee is an independent and distinct contract between the bank and the beneficiary and is not qualified by the underlying transaction and the validity of the primary contract between the person on whose instance the bank guarantee was given and the beneficiary. Unless fraud or special equity exists, is pleaded and prima facie established by strong evidence as a triable issue, the beneficiary cannot be restrained from encashing the bank guarantee even if dispute between the beneficiary and the person at whose instance the bank guarantee was given by the Bank, had arisen in performance of the contract or execution of the works under taken in furtherance thereof. . . . The object behind is to inculcate respect for free flow of commerce and trade and faith in the commercial banking transactions unhedged by pending disputes between the beneficiary and the Contractor. 5. It is equally settled that in terms of the bank guarantee the beneficiary is entitled to invoke the bank guarantee and seek encashment of the amount specified in the Bank guarantee. It does not depend upon the result of the decision in the dispute between the parties, in case of the breach. The underlying object is that an irrevocable commitment either in the form of Bank guarantee or letters of credit solemnly given by the bank must be honoured. The court exercising its power cannot interfere with enforcement of bank guarantee/letters of credit except only in cases where fraud or special equity is primafacie made out in the case as a triableissue by strong evidence so as to prevent irretrievable injustice to the parlies. The trading operation would not be jettisoned and faith of the people in the. efficacy, of banking transactions would not be eroded or brought to disbelief. " In this case two contentions were raised (1) that it was a fraud because after promise to extend the time for completing the work, and the terms of the bank guarantee were extended, that contract was terminated. It was held that it was not a case of fraud buf one of acting in terms of contract. Second contention was that unless the amount due and payable is determined by a competent court or tribunal by mere invocation of bank guarantee or letter of credit pleading that the amount is due and payable by the petitioner which was disputed cannot be held to be due and payable in a case. This contention was rejected. It was held that the bank guarantee/letter of credit is an independent contract between the bank and final adjudication of the disputes between the parties is not a pre condition to invoke the bank guarantee. This contention was rejected. It was held that the bank guarantee/letter of credit is an independent contract between the bank and final adjudication of the disputes between the parties is not a pre condition to invoke the bank guarantee. In Hindustan Steel Work construction Ltd. Vs. Tarapore and Co. and Am. J. T. 1996 (6) SC 296, injunction was sought against invocation of the Bank guarantee on the ground that there was counter claim which was referred to the Arbitrator it was held that the circumstance that there was serious dispute on the question as to who has committed the breach of the contract and that whether the amount is due and payable by the Contractor to the appellant till the Arbitrator declares the Award, was not sufficient to make the case an exceptional one or of special equity justifying interference restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank guarantee. It was further laid down in this case that whether the bank guarantee is towards security deposit or mobilization advance or working funds or for due performance of the Contract, if the same is unconditional and if there is a stipulation in the bank guarantee that the bank should pay on demand without demur and that the beneficiary shall be the Sole Judge not only on the question of breach of contract but also with respect to the amount of loss or damages, obligation of the bank would remain the same and that obligation has to be discharged in the manner provided in the bank guarantee. In the case of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (JT 1995 (5) SC403) the appellant had entered into a contract with a foreign buyer for supply, of 7000 MT of Rice. It in turn had entered into an agreement with the respondent for supply of 3000 MT and in case of necessity another 1,500 MT of Rice. In furtherance thereof the respondent had furnished a performance bank guarantee which was payable on demand that the supplier had defaulted in the fulfilment of its obligations and in terms of the guarantee, on certificate that the respondent had committed default in the performance of the contract, the bank guarantee was invoked. On behalf of the respondent inter alia it was contended that the contract between the appellant and the foreign buyer was cancelled and in the circumstances invocation of bank guarantee was fraudulent. On behalf of the respondent inter alia it was contended that the contract between the appellant and the foreign buyer was cancelled and in the circumstances invocation of bank guarantee was fraudulent. Negativing this contention it was held that there was no fraud in the formation of execution of the bank guarantee. . The cancellation of the contract between the appellant and the foreign buyer does not have the effect of frustrating or cancelling the contract with the respondent and invoking of the Bank Guarantee is not a fraud or fraudulent act of the appellant. Following U. P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. 1988 (1) SCC 174 and General Electric Technical Services Co. Inc. Vs. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. and Anr. 1991 (4) SCC 230 ; it was laid down that the fraud must be in the nature of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction of the bank guarantee. It was emphasized that it is settled that the court, before issuing the injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. should prima facie be satisfied that there is triable issue, strong prima facie case of fraud or irretrievable injury and balance of convenience is in favour of issuing injunction to prevent irremedial injury. The Court should normally insist upon enforcement of bank guarantee and the court should not interfere with the enforcement of the contract of guarantee unless there is specific plea of fraud or special equities in favour of the plaintiff. He must necessarily plead and produce all the necessary evidence in proof of the fraud in execution of the contract of the guarantee, but not of the contract either of the original contract or any of the subsequent events that may happen as a ground for fraud. The bank guarantee in the present case in absolute terms gives discretion to the respondent beneficiary to invoke the same, by making a demand staling that the contractor has committed default in repayment of the advanced amount or any part thereof and such demand is final, conclusive and binding. And the beneficiary has been made the sole Judge to decme as to whether contractor has or has not committed default in payment of the advanced amount or any part thereof and the decision of the beneficiary is final and conclusive and binding. And the beneficiary has been made the sole Judge to decme as to whether contractor has or has not committed default in payment of the advanced amount or any part thereof and the decision of the beneficiary is final and conclusive and binding. In the letter invoking the Bank guarantee (annexure P. 29/r-11) it has been specifically mentioned that the said contractor has committed default in payment of Rs. 91,86,473. 00. Prima facie there is no illegality or infirmity on the face of this invocation letter in invoking the bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the petitioner however has contended that the recovery could be effected in stages and upto the stage of Final bill and as that stage has not arrived the Bank guarantee could not he invoked. There is no condition mentioned or apparent in the-bank guarantee that the beneficiary was to wait for that final stage and that Final stage may never reach if the Contractor fails to execute the work. In condition No. 3for grant of First advance it was stipulated that in the event of. the petitioner failing to execute a minimum work of 2/3rd value within 4 months of the date of the release of the adhoe advance, the advance or any part thereof shall be recovered from the admitted dues or by encashing the bank guarantee. For the second instalment of advance also, a time for achieving a particular target was stipulated. These admittedly remain unfulfilled. Time for execution was extended and in meeting held on 31. 7. 1996 lime was given upto 30. 11. 1996. But to no effect. The petitioner also can have no grievance of his two bills, i. e. , bill NO. 37 dated 10. 9. 1996 and Escalation Bill No. 17 dated 17. 9. 1996 haying not been approved by the Architect appointed for the purpose. Reasons have been given for rejecting and the Architect was competent to reject such bills. This Court cannot go into the validity of his decision. This also thus is not a valid ground to interfere by this Court. As regards the allegations of concealment of facts about withholding of various amounts of over Rs. 17 lacs at the time of invoking the Bank Guarantee, Annexure P-25 relied is a report "summary of Abstract of cost" prepared by the Architect where under the sub-head special Advance , a sum of Rs. 91,86,473. As regards the allegations of concealment of facts about withholding of various amounts of over Rs. 17 lacs at the time of invoking the Bank Guarantee, Annexure P-25 relied is a report "summary of Abstract of cost" prepared by the Architect where under the sub-head special Advance , a sum of Rs. 91,86,473. 00 as outstanding for the petitioner is shown. This was accepted by the petitioner "under protest regarding withheld amounts". Any dispute regarding amount withheld or if such withheld amount could be adjustable towards the liability in dispute or not is not within the power of this Court to determine in these proceedings. The law as laid down in M/s. Synthetic Foams Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1988 Delhi 207 and M/s. Bannerjee and bannerjee Vs. Hindustan Steel Works construction Ltd. AIR 1986 Cal. 374 , to the effect that misrepresentation or suppression of material facts or violation of the term of the guarantee will be a ground to restrain invocation of the Bank guarantee has no application in the present case. In the circumstances, and for the reasons given above this petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Costs Assessed at Rs. 10,000. 00. Interim injunction granted on 27. 12. 1996 is vacated. Petitioner was granted exparte injunction on 27. 12. 1996. In view of the facts noticed above, the interim injunction was obtained on misconceived facts and was wholly unjustified as a result of which the respondent has been deprived of the benefit of the encashment of the bank guarantees. In my view the respondent should not suffer for the act of the Court. It is accordingly further ordered that the respondent shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 91,86,473. 00 from 23. 12. 1996 till actual payment of this amount by the Bank to the respondent against the aforesaid bank guarantees invoked by the letter.