Judgment :- (1.) WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant at length. Undoubtedly, the guarantee executed by the appellant is unconditional in nature. We may make a reference here to the bank guarantee in which the bank has unconditionally agreed to honour the same. The said bank guarantee reads as under: "we Central Bank of India, Kolkata Main Office, 33, Netaji Subhas Raod, kolkata-700001, registered under the laws of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Bank which expression shall include its successors and assigns) hereby undertake to pay the Corporation in rupees forthwith on first demand in writing and without protest or demur or proof or condition any and all moneys anywise claimed by the Corporation from the Contractor under, in respect of or in connection with the said contract as specified in any notice of demand made by the Corporation on the bank with reference to this undertaking upto an aggregate limit of Rs. 11,73,000 (Rupees eleven lakhs seventy-three thousand only)". (2.) THIS clause, in our opinion, makes it abundantly clear that the bank guarantee is unconditional in nature. It has also now become apparent that in terms of the bank guarantee, letter of invocation was duly served upon the bank on 24th of March, 2008. The letter of invocation is not dated 31st of march, 2008 as was pleaded by the appellant. The photostat copy of the letter that has been produced before this Court today clearly shows that the letter was received by the Bank on 24th of March, 2008. It was emphatically stated In the stay application and the affidavit attached thereto that the representative of the appellant was permitted to inspect the aforesaid letter but was not permitted to have a copy thereof. (3.) WE are of the considered opinion that on inspection of the aforesaid letter, the representative of the appellant could not possibly have failed to notice that the letter dated 21st March, 2008 had been received by the Bank on 24th of March, 2008. In spite of such being the position, an averment has been made in the stay application as also in the affidavit sworn in support thereto that the letter had actually been dated 31st of March, 2008. In spite of such being the position, an averment has been made in the stay application as also in the affidavit sworn in support thereto that the letter had actually been dated 31st of March, 2008. (4.) THIS matter was mentioned before this Division Bench late on Thursday afternoon (27.3.2008) with a request that since the matter has been released by the Regular Bench, it may be assigned to another Honble Judge as the matter was of utmost urgency. Consequently, the matter was duly assigned to another Honble Judge. The learned Single Judge heard the matter on 27th of March, 2008 itself in chamber and passed a well reasoned Order. The application for interim order filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. Thereafter the matter was mentioned on Friday afternoon (28.03.2008) before this Bench and it was pleaded that the learned Single judge had disposed of the entire application with the result that the bank guarantee would be invoked on that day itself unless this Court granted interim relief. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate that (i) the bank guarantee was conditional in nature, (ii) that the letter of invocation was not in terms of the bank guarantee and (iii) that the learned single Judge while considering the application of the appellant came to the conclusion that the appellant had made out an arguable case and, therefore, was wholly unjustified in denying the interim relief to the appellant. It was also argued by Mr. Kapoor that in view of clause 17 of the Contract entered into between the appellant and the Indian Oil Corporation, the appellant has also suffered the liquidated damages in terms of the contract. Therefore, now permitting the bank respondent-Corporation to violate the doctrine of "unjust enrichment". In view of the aforesaid submissions and without having the benefit of the assistance of any of the Counsel from the other side, as the matter had been moved without notice to the Counsel of the other sides, on the ground of urgency, and without having the benefit of the observations made by the learned Trial Judge, this Court directed that the bank guarantee would not be invoked over the week-end. It was, however, made clear that the matter would be heard first in the morning of 31st March, 2008 before the appellate Side matters were taken up. It was, however, made clear that the matter would be heard first in the morning of 31st March, 2008 before the appellate Side matters were taken up. In normal course the Original Side matters are taken up in the afternoon session. In the meantime, Mr. Kapoors advocate-on-Record was also asked to serve copies of the stay application together with the relevant papers on the bank as well as on the corporation. Mr. Kapoor has stated that the pleadings were duly served on the corporation as also on the bank. The corporation in spite of service has chosen not to appear. However, Mr. Debal Banerjee, Senior Advocate, has appeared for the bank. Learned Counsel has placed on record the letter of invocation, as we have already noticed, which clearly shows that it was dated 21st of March, 2008 and was served on the Bank on 24th of March, 2008. (5.) WE would be justified to dismiss the appeal only on the ground that the appellant had deliberately tried to over-reach this Court. We have earlier already noticed that the letter dated 21.03.2008 was pleaded to be dated 31.03.2008. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kapoor, had vehemently argued that there is no invocation in terms of the bank Guarantee. We are satisfied that the appellants have not come to court with clean hands. In such cases the ratio of law laid down in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L. Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. , reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 , would be squarely applicable. Considering the obligations of a party to make a true disclosure of all the relevant facts and the effect of partial disclosure or failure to disclose all the facts, the Supreme Court speaking through Kuldip Singh, J. observed as follows: "7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. "The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes of engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of Law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who conies to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constraint to say that more often than not process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He j can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 8. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by anothers loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the Court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side than (sic then) he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party." (6.) IN view of the observations the appeal can be dismissed at this stage itself. (7.) HOWEVER, in the interest of justice, we have considered the appeal on merits also. We have perused the bank guarantee and are satisfied that it cannot be stated to be a conditional bank guarantee, as submitted by Mr. Kapoor. In case there are any disputes between the parties with regard to the underlying contract, the parties will be at liberty to seek relief in accordance with law either by way of invoking the remedies under the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 or filing the necessary suit or other legal proceedings. Suffice it to say, it would not be proper at this stage to grant any relief by way of injunction. In our opinion, this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare karkhane vs. National Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2007 (6) SCC 470 . In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has reiterated the ratio of law in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. vs. Singh Consultants and engineers (P) Ltd., 1988 (1) SCC 174 ; United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of india, 1981 (2) SCC 766 ; General Electric Technical Services Co. Inc. vs. Punj sons (P) Ltd., 1991 (4) SCC 230 ; U. P. State Sugar Corpn. vs. Sumac international Ltd., 1997 (1) SCC 568 . In these cases it has been clearly held that the breach of the underlying contract is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of invocation of a bank guarantee. It is also a settled proposition of law that the bank guarantee is a wholly independent contract. We may here notice the observations made by the Supreme Court as under : "9. In these cases it has been clearly held that the breach of the underlying contract is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of invocation of a bank guarantee. It is also a settled proposition of law that the bank guarantee is a wholly independent contract. We may here notice the observations made by the Supreme Court as under : "9. The case of the respondent is that the bank guarantee is a conditional one and unless the condition precedent for enforcement of the bank guarantee is satisfied the appellant cannot be permitted to invoke the bank guarantee. It is on that ground the respondent filed miscellaneous petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking injunction against the appellant restraining it from encashing bank Guarantee No. 56/03 dated 4.7.2005. 10. The Trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter dismissed the application filed by the respondent herein and refused to grant any injunction restraining the appellant from encashing the bank guarantee as prayed for by the respondent. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that invocation of the bank guarantee and its encashment by the appellant cannot be held to be fraudulent or untenable and further held that the respondent has failed to prove that there will be irretrievable justice in case bank guarantee is invoked. 20. In UP. Coop. Federation Ltd. vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P)Ltd. the respondent therein entered into an agreement with the appellant for constructing a vanaspati manufacturing plant for the latter. The contract required the respondent to furnish two bank guarantees for proper construction and successful completion of the plaint. Bank of India executed two bank guarantees in favour of the appellant Under the terms of guarantee the bank undertook to make unconditional payments on demand without reference to the respondent. The guarantees also provided that the appellant would be the sole judge for deciding whether the respondent had fulfilled the terms of the contract or not. Disputes arose between the parties as to the erection and performance of the plaint. The seller approached the civil court seeking injunction restraining the purchaser from invoking the bank guarantee. The High Court, proceeding on the basis that the injunction was sought not against the bank but against the appellant restrained the appellant from invoking the bank guarantee. Disputes arose between the parties as to the erection and performance of the plaint. The seller approached the civil court seeking injunction restraining the purchaser from invoking the bank guarantee. The High Court, proceeding on the basis that the injunction was sought not against the bank but against the appellant restrained the appellant from invoking the bank guarantee. This Court after elaborate consideration of the matter held: (SCC p. 190 para 34) "commitments of banks must be honoured 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 be done, the court should interfere." This Court relied upon its own earlier decision in United Commercial bank vs. Bank of India in which it is observed : (SCC p. 783, para 40)"that a bank issuing or confirming a letter of credit is not concerned with the underlying contract between the buyer and seller. Duties of a bank under a letter of credit are created by the document itself. . . . . " 21. In General Electric Technical Services Co. Inc. vs. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. this Court observed : (SCC pp. 237-38, para 9-10)" 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 Banks 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. . . . . . . . The Bank cannot be interdicted by the court at the instance of [purchaser] in the absence of fraud or special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties." 22. In our considered opinion if the bank guarantee furnished is an unconditional and irrevocable one, it is not open to the bank to raise any objection whatsoever to pay the amounts under the guarantee. In our considered opinion if the bank guarantee furnished is an unconditional and irrevocable one, it is not open to the bank to raise any objection whatsoever to pay the amounts under the guarantee. The person in whose favour the guarantee is furnished by the bank cannot be prevented by way of an injunction in enforcing the guarantee on the pretext that the condition for enforcing the bank guarantee in terms of the agreement entered between the parties has not been fulfilled. Such a course is impermissible. The seller cannot raise the dispute of whatsoever nature and prevent the purchaser from enforcing the bank guarantee by way of injunction except on the ground of fraud and irretrievable injury. " 23. In U. P. State Sugar Corpn. vs. Sumac International Ltd. this Court had laid down the principle as to the enforcement of the bank guarantees as under : (SCC p. 574, para 12)"12. The law relating to invocation of such bank guarantees is by now well-settled. When in the course of commercial dealings an unconditional bank guarantee is given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realise such a bank guarantee in terms thereof irrespective of any pending disputes. The bank giving such a guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer. The very purpose of giving such a bank guarantee would otherwise be defeated. The Courts should therefore, be slow in granting an injunction to restrain the realisation of such a bank guarantee. The Courts have carved out only two exceptions. A fraud in connection with such a bank guarantee would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee. Hence if there is such a fraud of which the beneficiary seeks to take advantage, he can be restrained from doing so. The second exception relates to cases where allowing the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned." (8.) A perusal of the Order of the learned Single Judge also shows that it would not be possible to hold that the same has been delivered without detailed consideration of the controversy between the parties. The learned judge has clearly come to, the conclusion as follows; "the case of fraud that the petitioner alleges is not the kind of fraud that would warrant the arrest of an unconditional bank guarantee. The mere making of an unmeritorious claim does not amount to fraud in every case. The petitioner has not made out any case of irretrievable injury or irreparable injustice. At the highest, even if the respondent is found to have invoked the bank guarantee without just cause, it is open to the petitioner to claim the amount in the arbitral proceedings. For the moment, if it appears that the terms of the bank guarantee permit an invocation and if the terms do not allow the person at whose behest the guarantee has been furnished to raise a whimper as to the banks liability to pay thereunder, no Order can be made for stopping payment. When an unconditional bank guarantee or letter of credit is given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realize the amount irrespective of any pending disputes. The bank is duty bound to honour the guarantee on its terms irrespective of the grievances that the person at whose behest the guarantee is furnished may harbour. There is no fraud of an egregious nature that is noticed in the present case. At least, no fraud that would vitiate the very foundation of the bank guarantee." (9.) IN our opinion, these observations are in consonance with the settled law which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahatma gandhi Sahakra Sakkare Karkhane vs. National Heavy Engineering corporation Ltd. and Anr (supra). We may reiterate here that at the time when the interim Order of injunction was granted on Friday afternoon (28.03.2008), this Bench did not have the benefit of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered opinion that neither the invocation of the bank guarantee can be said to be not in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee, nor can it be said that the invocation of the same will cause any irretrievable loss to the appellant. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to either plead or place on record any material of any fraud, much less fraud of any egregious nature to vitiate the very foundation of the bank guarantee. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to either plead or place on record any material of any fraud, much less fraud of any egregious nature to vitiate the very foundation of the bank guarantee. (10) BOTH the appeals and the applications are accordingly dismissed. (11.) LET the copy of the letter dated 21st of March, 2008 placed on behalf of the respondent-Bank be kept on record. (12.) XEROX certified copy of this Order be made available to the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities. Appeal and application dismissed.