Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the direction to the Respondent No. 1 to refund forthwith Rs. 300 Lacs with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of invocation of the Bank Guarantees and receiving that amount from the Respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also alternatively prayed for the direction to the Respondent No. 2 to reimburse and pay forthwith the amount of Rs. 300 Lacs with interest @ 18% to the petitioner. 2. This petition was admitted and rule was issued on 16.05.2008. At the time of admission of the petition, the Court has observed that the petitioner has a fairly arguable case. By way of interim arrangement, the Court has directed the Respondent No. 1 to return the entire sum of Rs. 300 Lacs to the Respondent No. 2 Bank. The Respondent No. 2 Bank in turn was directed to keep the amount in fixed deposit which may earn the interest at the maximum interest available to any other private depositor. The Court has, however, made it clear that the said order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, more particularly, the petitioner’s case because the respondent has argued that in the matter of contract, the Court normally should not entertain the petition and the parties may be relegated to the Civil Court as the petitioner has brought disputed questions of facts before this Court. The Court, therefore, made it clear that all these issues are required to be heard and decided on merits. 3. The above interim order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 645 of 2008 and while disposing of the said Letters Patent Appeal on 04.07.2008, the Division Bench has set aside the interim order dated 16.05.2008 without disturbing the order of the Learned Single Judge issuing rule on the petition. The Division Bench has also clarified that at the final hearing of the petition, the Learned Single Judge will be at liberty to decide the petition in accordance with law without being influenced by the said order. 4. Heard Mr. Suresh M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs. The Division Bench has also clarified that at the final hearing of the petition, the Learned Single Judge will be at liberty to decide the petition in accordance with law without being influenced by the said order. 4. Heard Mr. Suresh M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.K. Damani, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that one M/s. Samraj Exim (India) Private Limited (SEIPL for short) of Bombay had entered into an export contract bearing No. GN/20050025 with M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited, Singapore, sister concern of SEIPL, for export of 60,000 metric tons of iron ore. Thereafter, the said SEIPL entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Respondent No. 1 i.e. State Trading Corporation of India Limited (STC) on 13.04.2005 whereby the aforesaid Contract came to be assigned to the Respondent No. 1, who undertook to carry out the said transaction of export contract on behalf of SEIPL. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 14.04.2005, M/s. Creatway Pte. limited made an advance payment of Rs. 37,20,000/- US $ to the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 realized payment in advance to SEIPL of Bombay against post dated cheques and accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 was secured and hence, at that time, there was no need for any Bank guarantee. Thereafter, about 44,000/- metric tons of iron ore was shipped by M.V. Gangasagar and that too not to M/s. Creatway PTE Limited but to M/s. Sinochem International Corporation at Beijing and another shipment was shipped through M.V. Gangasagar to M/s. Genera Nice Resources at Hong Kong. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Chairman of SEIPL, namely, Mr. Somani approached the petitioner in February 2006 with a deal that he had a standing order of export of iron ore to M/s. Creatway, China and for that purpose, he had already entered into an agreement with STC and misrepresented that contracted iron ore was yet to be shipped and for that purpose, Bank Guarantee was required to be given as security for the said export and then obtained on behalf of the petitioner the Bank Guarantees dated 07.03.2006 and 21.03.2006 for Rs. 250 Lacs and Rs. 250 Lacs and Rs. 50 Lacs respectively on an assurance that there would be profit of Rs. 150 Lacs in this deal and out of that profit, the petitioner would be given Rs. 50 Lacs towards profit. 8. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid advance payment already made and in view of the shipment to aforesaid two parties, who are other than M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited, the foreign Buyer as per the contract dated 18.03.2005, the petitioner’s liability under the two subsequent Bank Guarantees cannot at all be invoked and there was no basis to invoke the said bank guarantees. 9. Based on the above facts, Mr. Suresh M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said two Bank Guarantees were for margin money for export of iron ore for proper execution of the MOU which implies that they were for future exports and not for recovery of any dues of the Respondent No. 1. Despite these facts and no liability to invoke the Bank guarantees, the Respondent No. 1 invoked the Bank Guarantees and the said Bank Guarantees were prematurely encashed on 09.05.2006 by sending its Officer personally from Bombay to Bhavnagar to the Respondent No. 2 Bank. The petitioner, on hearing about invocation of the bank guarantees and encashment of both these Bank guarantees, sought information under the Right to Information Act by letter dated 29.06.2006. Several correspondence was exchanged between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 thereafter. He has further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 has unauthorisedly and illegally encashed the two Bank Guarantees and the Respondent No. 2 has illegally, arbitrarily and unauthorisedly made payment of the amounts of the said two Bank Guarantees. Both the Bank Guarantees were for future exports and still they were invoked for past exports and as such, invocation and encashment of these bank guarantees is unauthorised and illegal and the payment of the amount of the bank guarantees by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 1 is absolutely unjust and illegal and it is liable to be refunded to the petitioner with interest. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Shah has further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 produced a copy of the letter of confirmation dated 29.07.2005 by altering the number of contract which was GN-20050034 as GN-20050025 representing that it is a copy of confirmation of contract No. 25 by committing forgery. Though the said confirmation was in respect of Contract No. 34 which is another contract between foreign buyer of Contract No. 25, who is seller in the contract No. 34 and another party of China mentioned therein as buyer, M/s. Sinochem International Corporation. The quantity of iron ore mentioned in this contract is also very less as compared to Contract No. 25. In respect of this contract, Bank Guarantee of different amount was given by ICICI bank and not by the Respondent No. 2. 11. Mr. Shah has further submitted that there is an admission of the Respondent No. 1 of realisation of proceeds including trade margin money of the Respondent No. 1 without any dues about the Contract for 60,000 metric tons of goods. Subsequently, on 14.06.2005, 44,007 metric tons iron ore was sent by M.V. Gangasagar and not by the vessel referred to in earlier contract and has received entire sale proceeds and margin money payable to it. There was also an admission that the bank guarantees were invoked on failing to get 7,25,000 US $ regarding Contract No. 34 and as such, it is clear that the Respondent No. 1 invoked Bank Guarantees of Contract No. 34 given by the Respondent No. 2 which is unauthorised and illegal. He has, therefore, submitted that the Respondent No. 1 is not permitted to encash the bank guarantees for different contract. 12. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Jivanlal Joitaram Patel vs. National Highways Authority of India and Others, AIR 2008 Gujarat 181 wherein it is held that when the bank guarantee has been given pursuant to a particular contract, it is not open to the respondents - authority to encash the bank guarantee against the alleged breach and non-compliance of the conditions of a different contract. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Shah has further submitted that the above decision of the Learned Single Judge of this Court has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2009 (2) GLH 35 wherein it is held that both the contracts are independent and separate contracts and bank guarantee executed in respect of one contract between the parties cannot be invoked in respect of another one, unless there is a specific stipulation to that effect in the contract. The Court, therefore, found no error in the reasoning of the Learned Single Judge and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. 14. Over and above these submissions, Mr. Shah has also referred to and relied upon various documents, affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed during the course of hearing of this petition and submitted that though prima facie, this Court has come to the conclusion at the time of admission of the petition that the action of the Respondent No. 1 of encashing the Bank guarantee and of the Respondent No. 2 in making payment to Respondent No. 1 is absolutely illegal, unauthorised and precisely for this reason, the amount was directed to be refunded. The Court has not passed the order to refund the amount to the petitioner only because that would amount to allowing the petition at the admission stage. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed with cost and the amount which is lying with the Respondent No. 2 Bank in separate fixed deposit should be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a. as claimed in this petition. 15. This petition was strongly opposed by the Respondent No. 1 and detailed affidavit-in-reply along with various documents was filed on 18.02.2008. Even thereafter, additional affidavits were filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 on 12.05.2008, 03.12.2008 and 16.12.2008. With these affidavits, several other documents are produced on the record of this petition. 16. Based on these affidavits and the documents, Mr. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the prayer clause contained in the petition is for refund of bank guarantee amount, which bank guarantee was encashed by STC in accordance with law. 16. Based on these affidavits and the documents, Mr. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the prayer clause contained in the petition is for refund of bank guarantee amount, which bank guarantee was encashed by STC in accordance with law. If at all the relief prayed for is to be granted, the same is to be adjudicated in a civil suit and not in the form of a writ petition. Such a relief cannot be granted while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. The contract was between the Respondent No. 1 and M/s. SEIPL. The petitioner had entered into a contract / agreement with M/s. SEIPL and had furnished the bank guarantee on behalf of M/s. SEIPL. The Respondent No. 1 has been wrongly impleaded by the petitioner. This Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as admittedly, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The dispute, if any, raised by the petitioner is from a contract. In catena of cases, it has been held that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised in cases where contractual obligations are sought to be enforced. There is no violation of any of his fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner which necessitates the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. The present petition itself raises complicated issues and disputes which cannot be gone into under writ jurisdiction. There is settled principle of law that in cases of disputed questions of fact, writ should not be entertained and the parties should be relegated to Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Though the entire petition talks of agreements and correspondence between the petitioner and M/s. SEIPL, the said M/s. SEIPL has not been made a party to the dispute. It is a necessary party to the present petition as all dealings of the Respondent No. 1 were with M/s. SEIPL and not with the petitioner. 17. Without prejudice to the above preliminary issues, Mr. Anand has submitted that one Mr. It is a necessary party to the present petition as all dealings of the Respondent No. 1 were with M/s. SEIPL and not with the petitioner. 17. Without prejudice to the above preliminary issues, Mr. Anand has submitted that one Mr. Rajiv Somani, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of SEIPL approached the Respondent No. 1 with a proposal for export of iron ore from India to China. It was proposed that procurement as well as land and sea logistics responsibility of moving the Cargo from the mine head upto China Port would be entirely of M/s. SEIPL and estimated profit for export of 60,000 metric tons iron ore would be about 1,20,000/- US $. It was also represented that M/s. SEIPL had signed a contract with M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited, Singapore for the supply of 60,000 metric tons iron ore FE 58% to China in bulk as per the specification. M/s. SEIPL had confirmed with the foreign buyer. M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited had obtained the letter of credit in their favour for the shipment to China. The same had been executed on 08.04.2005. After exchange of correspondence, an MOU was executed on 13.04.2005 between M/s. SEIPL and the Respondent No. 1. After signing of MOU, letter of credit was transferred in favour of Respondent No. 1 at the request of M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited by Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation Limited on 14.04.2005. First shipment made to China was of 66 metric tons. Export proceeds were fully realized. Thereafter, 44,007 Metric tons of iron ore was shipped through M.V. Gangasagar vide Bill of Lading No. 01 dated 14.06.2005 valued at 18,65,580/- US $ to M/s. Genera Nice Resources, Hong Kong. As the Respondent No. 1 realized the entire export proceeds at the first delivery, this time the Respondent No. 1 had released 75% of the value of the goods as advance in terms of the MOU in favour of M/s. SEIPL and had also agreed to pay shifting freight charges separately against securing 10% of the value. Mr. Anand has further submitted that after the shipment, dispute arose between M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited and M/s. Arya Shipping, (owners of the ship) on the question of shifting freight. Mr. Anand has further submitted that after the shipment, dispute arose between M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited and M/s. Arya Shipping, (owners of the ship) on the question of shifting freight. The dispute could not be resolved till the ship reached the Chinese Port and, therefore, the ship owner refused to load the Cargo at the destination port and the Cargo remained uploaded outside the sea port Lianyungang - China. During this time, the importer / buyer of the goods had gone back and refused to take delivery of the goods because of the controversy pertaining to shift freight. As a result of intervention by M/s. SEIPL, another buyer M/s. Sinochem Ind. in China agreed to purchase the entire goods on condition that they shall retain US $ 7,25,000, the cost of shifting freight and they shall release the sum in favour of the party on settlement of the dispute between M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited and M/s. Arya Shipping. SEIPL vide their letter dated 29.07.2005 requested the Branch Manager of Respondent No. 1 to give an undertaking and permitted M/s. Sinochem Ind. to retain US $ 7,25,000/- and to make the balance payment of the goods. In lieu of the letter of confirmation to be issued by the Respondent No. 1, M/s. SEIPL was directed to furnish a bank guarantee for the sum equivalent to US $ 7,25,000 i.e. the disputed shifting freight amount. The Respondent No. 1 agreed to issue the letter of confirmation to M/s. Sinochem Ind., China to retain US $ 7,25,000/- as they had been assured by M/s. SEIPL that this amount would be secured by additional bank guarantee to be furnished by M/s. SEIPL. Accordingly, letter of confirmation was issued by Respondent No. 1 to M/s. Sinochem Ind., China. The dispute relating to shifting freight charges between M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited and M/s. Arya Shipping was pending before the panel of International Arbitrators. The two Bank Guarantees for sum of Rs. 250 Lacs and Rs. 50 Lacs dated 07.03.2006 and 21.03.2006 were furnished by M/s. SEIPL through the petitioner in favour of the Respondent No. 1 along with the covering letter dated 22.03.2006. Since the Respondent No. 1 failed to get the balance payment of US $ 7,25,000, it invoked the bank guarantee given by M/s. SEIPL, on 09.05.2006 for the sum of Rs. 3 Crores. Mr. Since the Respondent No. 1 failed to get the balance payment of US $ 7,25,000, it invoked the bank guarantee given by M/s. SEIPL, on 09.05.2006 for the sum of Rs. 3 Crores. Mr. Anand has, therefore, submitted that this action was necessitated on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 to secure the public / Government money which was at stake and had to be recovered at the earliest. Having failed to get a favourable response from the Respondent No. 1, the petitioner after about 4 months filed FIR against the officers of the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 filed quashing petition before this Court. Since interim prayer was rejected by this Court, the Respondent No. 1 approached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and interim protection is granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Officers of the Respondent No. 1. 18. Mr. Anand has further submitted that the petitioner cannot take an advantage of an averment made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 to the effect that 66,000 metric tons of iron ore was sent to China made from Goa port and entire export proceeds including STC’S trade margin without any dues was received on 30.04.2005. As a matter of fact, this averment was subsequently clarified in an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 on 12.05.2008. Based on this additional affidavit, Mr. Anand has submitted that the said export of 66,000 metric tons of iron ore was in consequence of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.05.2005. For execution of the said MOU, letter of credit was opened with Fortis Bank dated 12.04.2005. Two bills of lading were issued dated 29.04.2005 and the said goods were accordingly dispatched. The details of the said shipment of 66,000 metric tons were mentioned in paragraph H of the earlier affidavit only with a view to demonstrate that SEIPL had credibility in securing of export order. This was the reason why 75% of the amount was given as advance payment qua the MOU dated 13.04.2005. He has further submitted that out of 60,000 metric tons of iron ore to be exported vide MOU dated 13.04.2005, only 44007 metric tons of iron ore were actually exported. The Contract No. GN20050025 is the contract number of M/s. SEIPL with Creatway Pte. Limited, Singapore. He has further submitted that out of 60,000 metric tons of iron ore to be exported vide MOU dated 13.04.2005, only 44007 metric tons of iron ore were actually exported. The Contract No. GN20050025 is the contract number of M/s. SEIPL with Creatway Pte. Limited, Singapore. However, after the dispatch of the goods, the buyer backed out of the contract and another Contract No. GN20050034 was entered into by Creatway Pte. Limited with M/s. Sinochem International Corporation. As the iron ore shipped was financed by the Respondent No. 1, under Contract No. GN 20050025 and on arrival in China, the said goods had to be sold, as the original buyer had refused to take the consignment, there was no option but to sell the consignment under Contract No. GN20050034. As far as the Respondent No. 1 is concerned, it had financed the goods dispatched under Contract No. GN 20050025 in terms of the MOU dated 13.04.2005 and was accordingly competent to encash the Bank Guarantees to obtain its money due to it as the difference in the ocean freight. He has further submitted that Contract No. GN20050034 is an inter-se contract between M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited with M/s. Sinochem International Corporation. As far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the goods financed by it were in terms of the MOU dated 13.04.2005 for Contract No. GN 20050025. No fraud whatsoever has been alleged by the petitioner in the entire petition. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that when fraud is alleged, all the material particulars ought to be furnished. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves to be dismissed with cost. 19. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Ganga Enterprises and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 410 wherein it is held that the law regarding enforcement of an “on-demand bank guarantee” is very clear. If the enforcement is in terms of the guarantee, then Courts must not interfere with the enforcement of a bank guarantee. The Court can only interfere if the invocation is against the terms of the guarantee or if there is any fraud. If the enforcement is in terms of the guarantee, then Courts must not interfere with the enforcement of a bank guarantee. The Court can only interfere if the invocation is against the terms of the guarantee or if there is any fraud. Courts cannot restrain invocation of an “on-demand guarantee” in accordance with its terms by looking at the terms of the underlying contract. The existence or non-existence of an underlying contract becomes irrelevant when the invocation is in terms of the bank guarantee. The Court further held that if the guarantee was rightly invoked, there was no question of directing refund. 20. Mr. Anand has further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & others vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited, (1996) 6 SCC 22 wherein it is held that the very remedy adopted by the respondent is misconceived. The writ petition filed by the respondent for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Government from deducting or withholding a particular sum, which according to the respondent is payable to it under the contract, was wholly misconceived and was not maintainable in law. Firstly, for the reason that the contract between the parties is a contract in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. It is governed by the provisions of the Contract Act or may be, also by certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated, in a writ petition. Secondly, whether there has been a reduction in the statutory liability on account of a change in law within the meaning of the terms of the contract is again not a matter to be agitated in the writ petition. Further, the Contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration. The arbitrators can decide both questions of fact as well as questions of law. When the contract itself provides for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the contract, parties should follow and adopt that remedy and should not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The arbitrators can decide both questions of fact as well as questions of law. When the contract itself provides for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the contract, parties should follow and adopt that remedy and should not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The existence of an effective alternative remedy provided in the contract itself, is a good ground for the Court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 21. Mr. Anand has further relied on the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, AIR 1965 SC 1740 , wherein it is held that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred on them under Art. 226 of the Constitution, a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected by the State as tax is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax and in such a suit it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 22. Based on the above factual as well as legal submissions, Mr. Anand has strongly urged before the Court that the petition be dismissed with cost and the Respondent No. 2 Bank be directed to remit the amount of two Bank Guarantees with interest accrued thereon, to the Respondent No. 1 forthwith. 23. Mr. B. K. Damani, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 Bank referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Bank on 08.03.2008. He has fairly submitted that the Bank Guarantees were invoked by the Respondent No. 1, but, it cannot be said that the same were invoked unauthorisedly or illegally. He has further submitted that there might be some dispute with regard to invocation of Bank Guarantees between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 has, however, nothing to do with such disputes. He has further submitted that there might be some dispute with regard to invocation of Bank Guarantees between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 has, however, nothing to do with such disputes. The Bank has paid the amount of Bank Guarantees on their invocation as per the terms thereof. The Bank has kept the amount in separate deposit pursuant to the interim order of this Court and the Bank will be abide by the final order of this Court in the present petition. 24. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having considered their respective pleadings and rival submissions in light of documents produced before the Court and the decided case law on the subject, the Court is of the view that the main argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that the Bank Guarantees were invoked for the alleged breach of altogether a different contract, i.e. Contract No. 34, whereas the Bank Guarantees were given for due performance of Contract No. 25. This is not permissible as per the say of the petitioner and as held by this Court in the case of Jivanlal Joitaram Patel vs. National Highway Authority of India and Others (Supra). Thus, the real question for this Court to decide is whether Bank Guarantees were invoked for the same contract or for different Contract ? 25. To appreciate this question and the controversy between the parties in its proper perspective, it is necessary to have a close look at the Bank Guarantees. The first Bank Guarantee dated 07.03.2006 for Rs. 250 Lacs refers to in its preamble an MOU signed with the Government (respondent No. 1) for export and supply of Iron Ore of Indian Origin by M/s. Samraj Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. Dated 13.04.2005. It further states that the Bank shall be bound by all acts, deeds and things whether of commission or omission in all matters arising and pertaining to the terms and conditions of the MOU. It also states that the Bank is liable to pay the guaranteed amount or any part thereof under the said Bank Guarantee only if there is a breach of the MOU dated 13.04.2005 and if the Government serves upon the Bank a written claim or demand on or before 06th June, 2006. It also states that the Bank is liable to pay the guaranteed amount or any part thereof under the said Bank Guarantee only if there is a breach of the MOU dated 13.04.2005 and if the Government serves upon the Bank a written claim or demand on or before 06th June, 2006. There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent No. 1 invoked the Bank Guarantees, vide its letter dated 09.05.2006 informing the Bank that the amount under the Bank Guarantees has fallen due to them by way of loss / damages suffered by STC due to breach of the Contract by M/s. Samraj Exim (India) Private Limited of the terms and conditions of MOU dated 13.04.2005. 26. It is necessary to have a glance at some of the terms and conditions of MOU dated 13.04.2005. The preamble refers to the Contract No. GN 20050025 signed by Associate (SEIPL) with M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited, Singapore for the supply of 60000 MTS plus / minus 10% of Iron Ore. Clause 5 states that the Associate shall settle any / all claims of the Foreign Buyer with respect to quantity, quality etc. directly with the Foreign buyer. Under the head ‘payment’, it is stated that the Associate shall be fully responsible for any / all demurrage claims, if any, of the port as well as incurred by the vessel, if any, and shall arrange to settle same immediately directly with the Port authorities and the vessel owners. It is further stated that the Associate shall be fully responsible to ensure that payment for exports effected are realized and any delay / default in same shall be to the account of the Associate only. Under the head “Indemnity”, it is stated that without any protest or demur, the Associate indemnifies STC and agrees to hold STC harmless against any loss, claim, damage, demurrage, costs, penalties, liabilities, legal cases, short shipment, quantity / quality / purity / marking / specifications etc. of the material, cost or expense of whatsoever nature caused to STC on account of the Associate’s acts / omissions / default and/or non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of this MOU. The Associate also indemnifies STC from any / all claims under the export contract / L.C. as well as local procurement of Iron Ore Fines. of the material, cost or expense of whatsoever nature caused to STC on account of the Associate’s acts / omissions / default and/or non-fulfillment of terms and conditions of this MOU. The Associate also indemnifies STC from any / all claims under the export contract / L.C. as well as local procurement of Iron Ore Fines. Under the head “other conditions”, it is stated that all risks, liabilities, transit / storage losses, quality / quantity claims, if any, will be settled directly between the Associate and the Foreign Buyer / local suppliers and STC shall not be responsible for any claims / costs of any nature whatsoever and shall not be liable for any acts of omission, commission, breaches or other wrongs arising out of / implementation of any contract entered into. 27. A combined reading of Bank Guarantees as well as MOU dated 13.04.2005 makes it clear that in terms of Original Contract No. 25, SEIPL agreed to ship 60,000 MTS + 10% of subject Cargo which later on down sized to 50,000 MTS + 10% plus / minus. The Foreign Buyers then further down sized the contract to 40,000 MTS + 10% plus / minus. This is clear from the letter dated 13.06.2005 addressed by the Respondent No. 1 to SEIPL. Accordingly, the goods were supplied under the Original Contract No. 25, as per the terms of MOU dated 13.04.2005. Even the goods were to be shipped by vessel “M.V. Gangasagar” ETA which is clear from the letter dated 01.06.2005 written by SEIPL to the Respondent No. 1. It is only after the dispatch of the goods, the foreign buyer backed out of the Contract and since the Iron Ore shipped was financed by the Respondent No. 1 under MOU dated 13.04.2005 and Contract No. 25, on arrival in China, the said goods had to be sold under Contract No. 34 entered into between M/s. Creatway Pte. Limited and Simochem International Corporation. However, since the Respondent No. 1 had financed the goods dispatched under Contract No. 25 in terms of the MOU dated 13.04.2005, they have every right to encash the Bank Guarantees to obtain their moneys due to them on account of the difference in the ocean freight. Limited and Simochem International Corporation. However, since the Respondent No. 1 had financed the goods dispatched under Contract No. 25 in terms of the MOU dated 13.04.2005, they have every right to encash the Bank Guarantees to obtain their moneys due to them on account of the difference in the ocean freight. It, cannot, therefore be accepted that the Bank Guarantees were invoked in connection with different Contract and as a result thereof, judgments of this Court relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. 28. It may not be irrelevant to note here that all the above facts which are available on record now were not available when the petition was admitted and interim relief was granted on 16.05.2008. They were placed on record along with additional affidavit dated 03.12.2008 and 10.12.2008. Had these facts been brought on record earlier, the Court would not have granted interim relief. Be that as it may, the Court may take a different view at the time of final disposal of the petition and it is not necessary that the final order should be in consonance with the interim order, even though it is a reasoned or speaking order. Even otherwise, as stated earlier, the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 645 of 2008 filed by the Respondent No. 1 challenging the interim order, has set aside the said interim order. 29. Irrespective of the fact that the Court takes the view on merits and holds that the Bank Guarantees were rightly invoked for the breach of MOU dated 13.04.2005, the legal issues raised by the Respondent No. 1 against the maintainability of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be brushed aside. Precisely for this reason, this Court, while admitting the petition and granting interim relief, observed that all these issues are heard and decided on merits. It is settled law that Court is very slow in interfering with the question of invocation of Bank Guarantees unless the fraud is alleged and adequate materials are produced in support of such fraud. The Court usually does not entertain such petition. Here in the present petition, it appears that the real dispute is between the petitioner and SEIPL and still the said SEIPL has not been joined as a party respondent. The Court usually does not entertain such petition. Here in the present petition, it appears that the real dispute is between the petitioner and SEIPL and still the said SEIPL has not been joined as a party respondent. Apart from this, the entire petition is based on contract and every breach of contract does not give rise to file petition before this Court. Even if, the Court may consider the argument of the petitioner that the Bank Guarantees are invoked for the alleged breach of different contract i.e. Contract No. 34, it is a disputed question of fact, as the Respondent No. 1 disputed this proposition and proved by producing cogent, clear and unequivocal evidence to the satisfaction of this Court that it is not the breach of different Contract but the same contract as contemplated under MOU dated 13.04.2005. In such a situation, the Court is not inclined to exercise its prerogative, extraordinary and equitable writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 30. In the result, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.