Judgment 1. This contempt petition under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC and Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the respondents alleging that the respondents were guilty of contempt of court for flouting the orders dated 7th September, 2005 and 21st October, 2005 of this Court and they deserved to be punished for the said contempt. The order dated 7th September, 2005 reads as under: OMP 320/2005 List the matter on 9th September, 2005. In the meantime, parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the bank guarantee. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The operative portion of the order dated 21st October, 2005 reads as under: In the result, both these petitions are allowed. The respondent is hereby restrained from receiving its dues from IOCL to the extent of US $ 18,87,825 and the said amount lying in the hands of the IOCL is hereby attached. The respondent is further restrained from invoking/encashing bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner to the tune of US $ 2,50,000/-and connecting counter /back to back guarantee. The restraint/attachment order shall remain in force till the award is made by the arbitrator and the attached amount/Bank Guarantee will be disbursed in accordance with the Award. In the original petition filed by the petitioner OMP No.320 of 2005, the petitioner had made only respondent No.1 as the sole respondent. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner approached this Court under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and this Court passed above-stated orders. It is contended by the petitioner that vide above orders, this Court had restrained the respondent No.1 from invoking bank guarantees of the petitioner and receiving monies under the back to back and counter guarantees. Despite this restraint order, of which the respondent No.1 was aware, the respondent No.1 in a fraudulent manner, breached the orders and received money under the bank guarantees and other respondent banks, contemptuously paid over to the respondent No.1, the amount of the back to back/counter guarantees, flouting the order of the Court. It is submitted that all the respondents committed contempt of this Court by paying amount against Bank Guarantees and are liable to be punished. 4. It is submitted that all the respondents committed contempt of this Court by paying amount against Bank Guarantees and are liable to be punished. 4. Following prayers have been made in the contempt petition: a. punish the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for having committed contempt of the orders passed by this Honble Court on 7.9.2005 and 21.10.2005; b. direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to restore the bank guarantee of USD 2,50,000; c. attach the properties of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and auction the same. d. direct respondent No.7 to stop all remittances to respondent No.1 directly or indirectly from India. e. direct respondent No.7 to stop all remittances to and from respondent No.4 and 6. f. restrain Punjab National Bank from demanding any amounts from the petitioner in respect of Bank Guarantees No. 1598FLG3 of 2005. g. pass interim and ad-interim ex-parte orders against the respondents in terms of the above prayer; and h. pass such other and further order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the bank guarantees about which petitioner is agitated were invoked by respondent No.1 on 6th September, 2005. The bank guarantees in question were counter bank guarantees i.e. a bank guarantee was executed by the petitioners bank Punjab National Bank in favour of Societe Generale of Paris, since the Societies Bank had given bank guarantees in favour of the Bank Tejarat, Tehran and Bank Tejarat, Tehran had executed the bank guarantees in favour of the respondent on behalf of the petitioner. All the bank guarantees were interlinked and were part of the same transaction. These bank guarantees were irrevocable and invocation of one bank guarantee automatically had to lead to invocation of all connected counter bank guarantees. The respondent No.1 had invoked the bank guarantee of Tejarat Bank on 6th September, 2005 leading to the invocation of connected bank guarantees executed by the Societies Bank, Paris and Punjab National Bank. 6. The first contention of the petitioner that vide an order dated 7th September, 2005, this Court had restrained the respondent No.1 from invoking bank guarantees is not tenable. The order dated 7th September, 2005, only directed the parties to maintain status quo which would mean that if the bank guarantee had already not been invoked then it should not be invoked. The order dated 7th September, 2005, only directed the parties to maintain status quo which would mean that if the bank guarantee had already not been invoked then it should not be invoked. The bank guarantees had already been invoked by respondent No.1 on 6th September, 2005. There was no restraint on respondent No.1 from invoking bank guarantees on 6th September, 2005. The other respondents were not the parties to the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was very well aware of the role of the other respondent. The petitioner knew who were the banks who had given guarantee and despite knowing this, the petitioner did not make any of the banks as party nor obtained any injunction against any of the banks from giving effect to the counter guarantees/guarantees executed by them. It was not a prayer in application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act that Bank should be restrained from honouring the Bank Guarantees. The respondents No.3 to 7, therefore, cannot be made parties to this contempt petition. It is settled law that strangers to the order cannot be made liable for flouting the order of the Court. Moreover, the contract between Punjab National Bank and Societe Bank, Paris was independent of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioners allegation that the respondent has flouted the contract and had not made the payment in accordance with the contract had nothing to do with the contract between Punjab National Bank and Societe Generale of Paris. Punjab National Bank executed the counter guarantees in favour of Societe Generale of Paris and committed to pay the amount merely on the asking of Societe Generale of Paris. The guarantee given by Punjab National Bank was irrevocable. Unless and until this Court was ceased of the contract between Societe Generale of Paris and Punjab National Bank and on considering the provisions of the contract between Societe Generale of Paris and Punjab National Bank, this Court could not have passed any order in respect of the contract. This Court had no occasion to consider the contract of bank guarantees between Punjab National Bank and Societe Generale of Paris neither had issued any restraint order against Punjab National Bank or Societe Generale of Paris, i.e. respondent No.3 and 4 or their officials. Respondents No.3 and 4, therefore, cannot be arrayed as party to the instant petition. 7. This Court had no occasion to consider the contract of bank guarantees between Punjab National Bank and Societe Generale of Paris neither had issued any restraint order against Punjab National Bank or Societe Generale of Paris, i.e. respondent No.3 and 4 or their officials. Respondents No.3 and 4, therefore, cannot be arrayed as party to the instant petition. 7. The law in respect of bank guarantees is well settled. The rule is that the bank guarantees must be honoured in accordance with its terms. As per the terms of the bank guarantees given by the Punjab National Bank and Societe Generale of Paris, the banks were liable to make payment on demand, the moment the bank guarantee was invoked by Tejarat Bank. PNB or Societe Generale of Paris had not given a direct bank guarantee in respect of the performance of the contract by the petitioner. They had given only counter guarantees. It was only Tejarat Bank who was ultimate guarantor. Since the petitioner could not arrange any guarantee with the Tejarat Bank, at the request of the petitioner, it was Punjab National Bank, Banker of the petitioner, on whose counter guarantee the Societe Generale of Paris stood guarantor for Tejarat Bank and thereafter Tejarat Bank gave bank guarantee about performance of the contract. Since these guarantees had already been invoked before the order was passed by this Court, no contempt lies against any of the bank or their official. 8. The order dated 21st October, 2005 restrained IOCL from releasing the amount. It also restrained respondent from invoking/encashing bank guarantees but the bank guarantees, by that time, had already been encashed. This Court in its order also has observed that the bank guarantees of US $ 2,50,000/-had already been invoked by the respondent. Since the bank guarantee had already been invoked by the respondent, this Court could not have passed a restraint order against invocation of bank guarantee or against encashing of the bank guarantees. The question of contempt, therefore does not arise. 9. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no force in this contempt petition. Same is hereby dismissed.