H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a private limited company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act. It has its registered office at mangalore. ( 2 ) M/s. Cement corporation of India is a public limited company and has its registered office at score complex, lodhi road, New Delhi. It is a government of India enterprise. The primary activity of the company is to manufacture and distribute cement to its various prestigious customers. the company has awarded contract of handling and transportation of cement at mangalore to the petitioner-company under contract no. cci:hyzo:mktg:92-93/3311, dated 17-9-1992. The purchase order contract was initially for a period of three months, which came to be extended by mutual consent for a further period upto 6-7-1993. Apart from other terms and conditions, the purchase order contract provided for furnishing of bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) for the due fulfillment of terms of contract by the petitioner-company. pursuant to the award of contract by the respondent-company, petitioner-company had furnished bank guarantee No. 38/10 of state bank of india, mangalore branch for an amount not exceeding rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) and by the said guarantee, the bank had undertaken to pay to the respondent-company an amount not exceeding Rs. 15. 00 lakhs against any loss or damage caused to or suffered by the corporation by reason of any breach by the supplier/contractor of any of the terms and conditions contained in the purchase order/contract and in the bank guarantee it was also made clear that any demand made by the corporation shall be conclusive as regards the amounts due and payable by the bank under the guarantee and the liability was restricted to an amount not exceeding rupees fifteen lakhs only. Initially, the bank guarantee offered was upto 7-1-1993 and the same came to be extended upto 7-7-1993. The bank had also undertaken that it will not revoke the bank guarantee during its currency except with the previous consent of the corporation in writing. ( 3 ) IT appears that there was no smooth sailing of the business transaction between petitioner and respondent-company. For this faux pas each one accuses the other. There was exchange of unsavory letters between the two contracting parties. ( 3 ) IT appears that there was no smooth sailing of the business transaction between petitioner and respondent-company. For this faux pas each one accuses the other. There was exchange of unsavory letters between the two contracting parties. During the currency of the contract, the respondent-company may be to prevent loss and damage to its business interest wrote a letter dated 1-6-1993 to the chief manager (commercial banking), state bank of india, mangalore branch, seeking encashment of the bank guarantee No. 38/10, dated 7-10-1992 for rupees fifteen lakhs and requested to send the proceeds by way of demand draft drawn in favour of M/s. Cement corporation of India limited, hyderabad. In turn the bank while enclosing the copy of the claim letter dated 1-6-1993 made by respondent-corporation, requested the petitioner-company to make necessary arrangement to settle the claim. We do not know what transpired between 19-6-1993 till 2-7-1993 and it is only on 2-7-1993, the bank remitted an amount of rupees fifteen lakhs in favour of the respondent-corporation. ( 4 ) SURPRISINGLY, the respondent-corporation after requesting the bank for encashment of bank guarantee, wrote a letter dated 4-6-1993 to the petitioner-company, inter alia alleging the misappropriation of corporation stocks to the extent of Rs. 24,55,380. 97 and thereby committed breach of contract of the purchase order and also informed the petitioner-company that they would be invoking the contract clauses of the work order. Disturbed by these unfortunate events, particularly the encashment of the bank guarantee by the respondent-corporation, petitioner-company is before this court seeking the following reliefs. They are. i. To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 4-6-1993 of the respondent-corporation, wherein they have proposed to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner-company. ii. To grant such other relief or reliefs as this court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) PETITIONER-COMPANY by way of interim prayer had requested this court to restrain the respondent-corporation from invoking the bank guarantee in pursuance of the letter dated 4-6-1993 pending disposal of the writ petition. The learned single judge of this court by his order dated 13th july, 1993, while issuing notice regarding 'rule' had granted an interim order restraining the respondent-corporation from invoking bank guarantee pursuant to their letter dated 4-6-1993 at Annexure-K to the writ petition, if not already done for a period of three weeks. The learned single judge of this court by his order dated 13th july, 1993, while issuing notice regarding 'rule' had granted an interim order restraining the respondent-corporation from invoking bank guarantee pursuant to their letter dated 4-6-1993 at Annexure-K to the writ petition, if not already done for a period of three weeks. ( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner-company had filed an application inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent-corporation to re-deposit the amount which it has realised from invoking bank guarantee. This court by its order dated 17-3-1994 has rejected the application in view of the fact that the respondent-corporation had encashed the bank guarantee even before this court granted an interim order on 13-7-1998. ( 7 ) IN support of the main prayer in the petition, petitioner-company asserts that the action of the respondent-corporation in invoking bank guarantee is not only unlawful and also wholly unsustainable. Secondly, it is asserted that the respondent-corporation without referring the matter to the arbitrator as provided in the terms of contract could not have unilaterally assessed the damages or loss caused to the corporation, when the same had been disputed by the petitioner-company in its several communications and therefore its action is wholly arbitrary. lastly, the action of the respondent-corporation in encashing the bank guarantee offered without notice to the petitioner-company and in the absence of an award by an independent arbitrator as provided in clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the contract suffers from non-compliance of rules of natural justice. The learned counsel for petitioner-company Smt. Meena kumari reiterates the grounds urged in the petition by making reference to the annexures produced along with the writ petition docket. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT-CORPORATION has filed its statement of objections resisting the reliefs sought in the writ petition. They contend that the assertion made by the petitioner-company that their action in invoking the bank guarantee as unlawful, illegal and arbitrary is untenable. secondly, the arbitration clause in the terms and conditions of the purchase order contract does not prevent the corporation from invoking the bank guarantee and lastly, the petitioner-company was solely responsible for all the unfortunate events including forcing the respondent-corporation to invoke the bank guarantee to realise the loss suffered by it by its persistent violation of covenants of the contract dated 14/17-9-1992. ( 9 ) SRI b. t. parthasarathy, learned senior counsel for the respondent-corporation contends that this court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction should not injunct the respondent-corporation from invoking the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner-company in view of the breach of contract committed by the petitioner. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel draws my attention to the observations made by the apex court in the case of m / s. Tarapore and company, Madras v m / s. Tractoroexport, moscow and another, united commercial bank v bank of India and others, general electric technical services company inc. V m / s. Punj sons (private) limited and another, and the decision of the Bombay high court in the case of M/s. coronation construction private limited v Indian oil corporation limited and others. ( 10 ) THE issues which require to be considered on the pleadings and contentions canvassed by the parties to the us are. I. Whether the respondent-corporation could have unilaterally decided the damage caused and the amount payable by the petitioner-company without referring the matter to independent authority/arbitrator?ii. Whether this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction could restrain the respondent-corporation from invoking the bank guarantee in pursuance of their letter dated 4-6-1993?iii. Whether it is proper at this stage to direct the respondent-corporation to re-deposit the amounts realised by it by encashing the bank guarantee?iv. Whether the respondent-corporation was justified in invoking the bank guarantee without issuing a notice to the petitioner-company?v. What order? ( 11 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions canvassed and to answer the issues raised, a reference to the correspondence dated 4-6-1993 requires to be made. Therefore, the said communication is extracted and it is as under:"confidential by regd. Post cci:hyzo:fin:93-94:1191 date: 4-6-1993. to M/s. Anchor lines (p) limited, Kerala samajam complex, k. s. rao road, mangalore-1. dear sir, sub: misappropriation of corporation stocks. it has come to our notice that cement stocks of the cprporation to the extent of Rs. 24,55,380. 97 have been misappropriated by your agency and the details are as under: 1. A quantity of 371. 00 mt of cement was removed by you from the godown during 3/93 without the consent/delivery order from our dump in charge (250. 00 mt removed for your own use and 121. 00 mt delivered to M/s. Janata boards frame industries ). 97 have been misappropriated by your agency and the details are as under: 1. A quantity of 371. 00 mt of cement was removed by you from the godown during 3/93 without the consent/delivery order from our dump in charge (250. 00 mt removed for your own use and 121. 00 mt delivered to M/s. Janata boards frame industries ). the value of above quantity is required to be recovered at double the market rate applicable on the date as per the terms of the contract has been worked out to Rs. 16,05,420/ -. 2. A quantity of 0. 20 mt stated to be short delivered by railways from tandur rake for which you could not produce railway certificate and hence recovery at single rate amounting to Rs. 477. 63 is required to be made as per contract condition 2. 8, part iii. 3. As on 4-1-1993 the dump in charge noticed a quantity of 43. 00 mt short in the godown. Hence recovery at the double the market rate prevailing has been proposed by the dump in charge/r. m. , which works out to Rs. 2,05,385. 20. 4. Apart from above it was also noticed that a quantity of 134. 00 mt of cement was sent to m. i. division, mangalore, from Bangalore dump against the order of executive engineer, m. i. division, mangalore. Although the m. i. department had given acknowledgement of receipt of material to our handling agent of Bangalore, the said quantity was kept in your godown in good faith as the party was not having adequate godown facility. You have misappropriated the said stock too as the same has not been delivered to the party. The m. i. department has not paid the money to cci so far due to the said reason. Accordingly, dump in charge/r. m. has proposed the recovery at double the rate which works out to Rs. 5,48,596. 00. 5 you have sold a quantity of 231. 00 mt vide invoice No. 01/04 against form 37 and failed to submit the form 37 for concessional tax, a recovery of Rs. 62,108. 74 is required to be made from you. 6. You have given cheque for Rs. 4,90,570. 00 being cost of 231. 00 mt of cement purchased by you. 5 you have sold a quantity of 231. 00 mt vide invoice No. 01/04 against form 37 and failed to submit the form 37 for concessional tax, a recovery of Rs. 62,108. 74 is required to be made from you. 6. You have given cheque for Rs. 4,90,570. 00 being cost of 231. 00 mt of cement purchased by you. This cheque was bounced and money could be realised after considerable delay for which a penal interest at the rate of 24% for 93 days has been levied i. e. , rs. 30,000. 00. 7. Rs. 2,986. 00 had been recovered by our bank towards realisation charges of above cheque. This amount also to be recovered from you. 8. A quantity of 0. 30 mt of cement was short delivered by you at k. i. o. c. c. , kudremukh for which recovery at double the rate has been proposed which is amounting to Rs. 1,407. 10. 9. It was also found from the report of the dump in charge that a quantity of 41. 15 mt of damaged and cut and torn cement is in the custody of your agency. thus from the foregoing it could be seen that a recovery of rs. 24,55,380. 97 of 41. 15 mt is due to be made from you (excluding value of damaged, cut and torn cement ). in view of the above you have committed a breach of contract and we hereby are invoking the contract clauses of the work order. please acknowledge the receipt of this letter. thanking you, yours faithfully, sd/- (a. l. narasimham) dy. Manager (fin)". ( 12 ) THE salient features of the afore extracted communication to me it appears are, the first part of it states about the misappropriation of the cement stocks entrusted by the respondent-corporation to the petitioner-company for transportation and distribution. The penultimate paragraph speaks of loss caused to the respondent-corporation in a sum of Rs. 24,55,380. 97 by the petitioner-company by its acts of omissions and commissions and lastly, the respondent-corporation accuses the petitioner-company that it has committed a breach of contract and therefore, they would invoke the contract clauses of the purchase order contract. The penultimate paragraph speaks of loss caused to the respondent-corporation in a sum of Rs. 24,55,380. 97 by the petitioner-company by its acts of omissions and commissions and lastly, the respondent-corporation accuses the petitioner-company that it has committed a breach of contract and therefore, they would invoke the contract clauses of the purchase order contract. This communication by the respondent-corporation to the petitioner-company is only after it wrote a letter dated 1-6-1993 to the bank seeking encashment of the bank guarantee dated 7-2-1992 for rupees fifteen lakhs as agreed by it in its bank guarantee No. 38/10. ( 13 ) TWO things are evident in the respondent-corporation's letter dated 4-6-1993. One is, it alleges the misappropriation of the cement stock supplied by it for transportation and distribution. Secondly, it quantifies the pecuniary loss suffered by it by the said omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-company and informs the petitioner that it would recover the loss sustained by it by invoking the contract clauses of the work order. That necessarily means that it would be invoking the bank guarantee offered by the petitioner-company for its due performance of contractual obligation. now the question would be, whether a party to the contract could be an arbiter in his own cause and quantify the loss or damage said to have been caused to him for breach of contract by the other party to the contract. In my opinion, the law is now well-settled. It is not necessary to have lengthy discussion on this issue. In my opinion, it would suffice to extract the law declared by apex court and stop at that. The apex court in the case of state of Karnataka v Shree rameshwara rice mills, thirthahalli, was pleased to observe:"a right to adjudicate upon an issue relating to a breach of conditions of the contract cannot be said to flow from or is inhered in the right conferred to assess the damages arising from a breach of conditions. The power to assess damages is a subsidiary and consequential power and not the primary power. The power to assess damages is a subsidiary and consequential power and not the primary power. Even assuming that the terms of the relevant clause afford scope for being construed as empowering the officer of the state to decide upon the question of breach as well as quantum of damages, the adjudication by the officer of the state government regarding the breach of contract cannot be sustained under law because a party to the agreement cannot be an arbiter in his own cause. Interest of Justice and equity require that where a party to a contract disputes the committing of any breach of conditions, the adjudication should be by an independent person or body and not by the other party to the contract". ( 14 ) IN the instant case, awarding of contract to the petitioner company by respondent-corporation is undisputed. It is also undisputed that there were several exchange of letters by the parties to the contract about the non-co-operation in arranging the cement stocks for supply to the customers by one party and the deficiency in distribution and transportation by the other party. At no point of time, petitioner-company had admitted its lapses either about its lapses in distribution of cement nor about misappropriation of cement stocks supplied by the corporation. in view of this, in my opinion, the respondent-corporation could not have ventured to be an arbiter to decide the extent of loss or damage said to have been caused by the petitioner-company and thereafter, could not have ventured to invoke the contract clause to recover the so-called loss or damage caused to it by the petitioner-company. In view of the law declared by apex court in rameshwara rice mills case, supra, in my opinion, it is difficult to sustain the impugned communication of the respondent-corporation dated 4-6-1993. That apart, the respondent-corporation is a government of India enterprise. It should have behaved in a better and proper manner. I say this because, the facts narrated by me earlier would demonstrate that the respondent-corporation first writes a letter dated 1-6-1993 to the state bank of india, mangalore branch, which had offered bank guarantee for due fulfillment by the contractor, namely, petitioner-company, seeking encashment of the bank guarantee for rupees fifteen lakhs and thereafter, communicates to the petitioner-company informing them the so-called lapses/breach of contract and the loss suffered by it by the breach of contract committed by it. This action in my opinion, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is not only arbitrary but also wholly illegal. Therefore, the impugned communication requires to be set aside. Consequence of annulling the impugned communication would be, anything done based on this communication cannot stand on its own. but as I have already observed that the respondent-corporation even before intimating the petitioner-company of its intention to enforce contract clauses in the purchase order contract, by its letter dated 1-6-1993 had requested the state bank of india, mangalore branch, which had given bank guarantee for the due fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the contract by the petitioner-company seeking encashment of the bank guarantee No. 38/10, dated 7-2-1992 for a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs and further, had requested the bank to send the proceeds by way of demand draft drawn in its favour immediately on receipt of the letter. ( 15 ) THE terms of the bank guarantee and the rights and liabilities thereunder are as follows. "state bank of india mangalore - 575 001 branch form No. 395408 cement corporation of India limited, progressive towers, 4th floor 6-2-913/914, khairatabad, hyderabad - 500 004. dear sirs, guarantee No. 38/10 amount of guarantee Rs. 15,00,000/ -. guarantee cover from 7-10-1992 to 7-1-1993 last date for lodgement of claim 7-4-1993. this deed of guarantee executed by the state bank of india, constituted under the state bank of India Act, 1955 having its central office at nariman point, Bombay, and amongst other places, a branch at mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') in favour of cement corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the beneficiary') for an amount not exceeding rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) at the request of M/s. anchro lines (p) limited (hereinafter referred to as the contractor/s ). this guarantee is issued subject to the condition that the liability of the bank under this guarantee is limited to a maximum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) and the guarantee shall remain in full force upto 7-1-1993 and cannot be invoked otherwise than by a written demand or claim under this guarantee served on the bank on or before the 7-4-1993. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) and the guarantee shall remain in full force upto 7-1-1993 and cannot be invoked otherwise than by a written demand or claim under this guarantee served on the bank on or before the 7-4-1993. in consideration of the cement corporation of India limited, plot No. 8, aparajitha housing colony, ammerpet, hyderabad (hereinafter called the corporation) having agreed to exempt M/s. anchor lines (p) limited, mangalore, (hereinafter called the contractor) from the demand, under the terms and conditions of purchase order/contract No. Cci:hyzo:mktg:92-93/3311, dated 17-9-1992 for contract for handling and secondary transportation at mangalore dump (hereinafter called the purchase order/contract) of security deposit for the due fulfillment by the said supplier/contractor of the terms and conditions contained in the purchase order/contract on production of a bank guarantee for Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only), we state bank of india, port road, mangalore (bank) do hereby undertake to pay to the corporation an amount not exceeding Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only) against any loss or damage caused to or suffered or would be caused to or suffered by the corporation by reason of any breach by the supplier/contractor of any of the terms and conditions contained in the purchase order/contract. we state bank of india, port road, mangalore, (bank), do hereby undertake to pay the amounts due and payable under this guarantee without any demur, merely on a demand from the corporation stating that the amount claimed is due by way of loss or damage caused to or would be caused to or suffered by the corporation by reason of any breach by the said supplier/contractor of any of the terms or conditions contained in the said purchase order/contract. Any such demand made on the bank shall be conclusive as regards the amount due and payable by the bank under this guarantee. However, our liability under this guarantee shall be restricted to an amount not exceeding rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only ). Any such demand made on the bank shall be conclusive as regards the amount due and payable by the bank under this guarantee. However, our liability under this guarantee shall be restricted to an amount not exceeding rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only ). we state bank of india, port road, mangalore, (bank) further agree that the guarantee herein contained shall remain in full force and effect during the period that would be taken for the performance of the purchase order/contract and that it shall continue to be enforceable till all the dues of the corporation under or by virtue of the purchase order/contract have been fully paid and its claims satisfied or discharged or till the chairman-cum-managing director of the corporation certifies in writing that the terms and conditions of the purchase order/contract have been fully and properly carried out by the supplier/contractor. we state bank of india, port road, mangalore (bank), further agree with the corporation that the corporation shall have the fullest liberty without our consent and without affecting in any manner our obligations hereunder to vary any of the terms and conditions of the purchase order/contract or to extend time of performance of the supplier/contractor from time to time or to postpone for any time or from time to time any of the powers exercisable by the corporation against the supplier/contractor and to forbear or enforce any of the terms and conditions relating to the purchase order/contract and we shall not be relieved from our liability by reasons of any such variations or extension being granted to the supplier/contractor or for any forbearance, act or omission on the part of the corporation or any indulgence by the corporation to the supplier/contractor or by such matter or thing whatsoever which under the law relating to the sureties would but for this provision have effect of so relieving us. our guarantee shall remain in force until 6th january, 1993 from the date hereof. Unless a demand of claim under this guarantee is made on us in writing within three months from the date i. e. , on or before 6th april, 1993, we shall be discharged from all liability under this guarantee thereafter. we, state bank of india, port road, mangalore (bank), lastly undertake not to revoke this guarantee during its currency except with the previous consent of the corporation in writing. we, state bank of india, port road, mangalore (bank), lastly undertake not to revoke this guarantee during its currency except with the previous consent of the corporation in writing. dated at mangalore, this the 7th day of october, 1992. for state bank of india sd/- manager (c and i division) mangalore". ( 16 ) THE deed of bank guarantee is executed by the state bank of india, mangalore branch. Under this deed, respondent-cement corporation of India is the beneficiary. The bank guarantee states that in consideration of the cement corporation of India having agreed to exempt M/s. Anchor lines private limited, petitioner company from the demand under the terms and conditions of the purchase order contract dated 17-9-1992 for handling and secondly, transportation at mangalore dump of security deposit for the due fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the contract, on production of the bank guarantee for rs. 15,00,000/ -. It also says that they would undertake to pay the amounts due and payable under the guarantee without any demur merely on a demand from the corporation stating that the amount claimed is due by way of loss or damage caused to or would be caused to or suffered by the corporation by reason of any breach by the contractor of any of the terms and conditions. It is also provided therein that any demand made by the corporation on the bank shall be conclusive as regards the amount due and payable by the bank under the guarantee and their liability is restricted to an amount not exceeding Rs. 15,00,000/- only. the respondent-corporation had sought for enforcement of this guarantee on the ground that the petitioner-company has misappropriated their cement stock to the extent of Rs. 24. 55 lakhs and thereby has caused pecuniary loss to the corporation. Pursuant to the request made, the bank has honoured its commitment by sending a demand draft drawn in favour of 'm/s. Cement corporation of India limited' for a sum of Rs. 15. 00 lakhs. Now the question would be whether this court should direct the respondent-corporation to re-deposit the money with the bank, since the communication of the corporation dated 4-6-1993 is taken exception to by this court. Insofar as the law as to the contractual obligations under the bank guarantee is now well-settled by several authoritative pronouncements made by the apex court. Now the question would be whether this court should direct the respondent-corporation to re-deposit the money with the bank, since the communication of the corporation dated 4-6-1993 is taken exception to by this court. Insofar as the law as to the contractual obligations under the bank guarantee is now well-settled by several authoritative pronouncements made by the apex court. In the case of general electric technical services company, supra, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe. " 'that in order to restrain the operation either of irrevocable letter of credit or of confirmed letter of credit or of bank guarantee, there should be serious dispute and there should be good prima facie case of fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties. Otherwise, the very purpose of bank guarantees would be negatived and the fabric of trading operations will get jeopardised'. It was further observed that the bank must honour the bank guarantee free from interference by the courts. Otherwise, trust in commerce, internal and international would be irreparably damaged. It is only in exceptional cases that is to say in case of fraud or in case of irretrievable injustice, the court should interfere. In the concurring opinion one of us (k. Jagannatha shetty, j.) Has observed that whether it is a traditional bond or performance guarantee, the obligation of the bank appears to be the same. If the documentary credits are irrevocable and independent, the bank must pay when demand is made. Since the bank pledges its own credit involving its reputation, it has no defence except in the case of fraud. The bank's obligations of course should not be extended to protect the unscrupulous party, that is, the party who is responsible for the fraud. But the banker must be sure of his ground before declining to pay. The nature of the fraud that the courts talk about is fraud of an "egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction". it is fraud of the beneficiary, not the fraud of somebody else". But the banker must be sure of his ground before declining to pay. The nature of the fraud that the courts talk about is fraud of an "egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction". it is fraud of the beneficiary, not the fraud of somebody else". ( 17 ) IN view of the law declared by apex court on the bank's contractual obligations under the bank guarantee, this court firstly cannot find fault with the bank in honouring its commitment when demand was made by respondent-corporation and secondly, this court also cannot injunct the bank not to honour its commitment under the bank guarantee in the absence of fraud or special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties. Now the question that remains is whether the respondent-corporation should be directed to redeposit the amounts it has realised by enforcing the bank guarantee. this is not possible at this stage in view of the orders made by this court on 17-3-1994, wherein this court has already rejected the prayer/direction sought for by the petitioner-company on the sole ground that the respondent corporation had invoked the bank guarantee and has realised the amounts even before this court granted an interim order on 13-7-1993. That order has become final, since the petitioner-company has not questioned the same before any superior forum. ( 18 ) IN the result, petitioner-company succeeds partly and therefore, the following: ( 19 ) PETITION is allowed in part. Rule made absolute to that extent only. ( 20 ) THE impugned communication of the respondent-corporation dated 4-6-1993 is quashed solely on the ground that the corporation cannot be arbiter of its own cause. ( 21 ) PARTIES are at liberty to recover the amounts due to them in accordance with law subject to the period of limitation. ( 22 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .