Judgment : The Court: The question now before the Court is whether the order of status quo regarding transfer of funds passed by me on 7th September, 2012 and continued from time to time should be further continued. 2. There is no dispute whatsoever that the bank guarantee in question furnished by State Bank of India to the defendant for Rs. 4,30,00,000/- at the instance of the plaintif was otherwise an unconditional bank guarantee payable without demur by the bank. But, nevertheless, it had two conditions, which had to be fulfilled on its invocation. A written demand had to be made by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. That written demand had to make a claim for the guaranteed amount stating that the above amount was due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the concerned agreement. 3. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, attacks the invocation of the bank guarantee made by a letter dated 30th August, 2012, which is Annexure-EE at page 188 of the petition. That letter was written by the Executive Engineer [Project-III). Rohini Zone under the letter head of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. He says that North Delhi Municipal Corporation is not the same as Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, hence, the invocation is bad not being according to its terms. 4. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate for the defendant Corporation submits that North Delhi Municipal Corporation is a division of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and there is nothing wrong in the invocation of the bank guarantee. Furthermore, it is submitted by him that the concerned agreement dated 16th December, 2009 being Annexure-E at page 48 of the agreement would show that the agreement was executed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi by the self-same Executive Engineer. The guarantee document would also show that it was addressed to him. 5. The next point raised by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra is that the letter of invocation did not mention that the amount claimed was due to this Corporation under the said agreem~nt. For this reason also, the invocation is bad. 6. Now I will discuss some authorities on the subject. 7. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 436 1 was about a bank guarantee which was required to be invoked by the Chief Engineer but was invoked by the Executive Engineer. For this reason also, the invocation is bad. 6. Now I will discuss some authorities on the subject. 7. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 436 1 was about a bank guarantee which was required to be invoked by the Chief Engineer but was invoked by the Executive Engineer. The Supreme Court held that the invocation was not according to the terms and that a bank guarantee should be invoked strictly according to its terms. This decision was followed by a decision of our Court in Omega Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Unit Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2009 (4) CHN 22 (paragraphs 13,14 and 15). Both these decisions were cited by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra. He also cited United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India & Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1426 . The Supreme Court in paragraph 41 of the report approved a passage from the judgment of Lord Denning M. R. in Elian v. Matsas, (1966) 2 LI LR 495, which said that a bank guarantee was equivalent to a letter of credit. In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with a letter of credit. It opined that the terms of the letter of credit should be strictly followed. 8. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate cited Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Rana Builders Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 Calcutta 229. It is a division Bench judgment of this Court. This judgment held that a distinction has to be drawn between compliance with the terms of a bank guarantee and those of a letter of credit. In the matter of invocation of a bank guarantee the Court was to see whether the bank and the beneficiary understood that the guarantee was being invoked according to the terms. Substantial compliance would do. 9. I find that this decision referred to almost all the leading decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject including United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India & Others, AIR 1981 SC 1426 (supra). I also note that the above passage, namely paragraph 41 of that judgment which equated a bank guarantee with 8 letter of credit was not considered. 10. Moreover, the judgment of the Supreme Court Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 436 (supra) was delivered at a later point of time. I also note that the above passage, namely paragraph 41 of that judgment which equated a bank guarantee with 8 letter of credit was not considered. 10. Moreover, the judgment of the Supreme Court Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 436 (supra) was delivered at a later point of time. The ratio of that decision is that a bank guarantee has to be invoked strictly according to its terms and not substantially according to its terms or on an understanding by the parties that it was being invoked according to its terms as held in Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Rana Builders Ltd.; AIR 1999 Calcutta 229 (supra). Moreover, this 1999 Supreme Court decision was followed by a later Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Omega Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Unit Construction Co. Put. Ltd. & Ors.; 2009 (4) CHN 22 (supra) as discussed above. Therefore, the law is that a bank guarantee is akin to a letter of credit. On invocation, the terms have to be scrupulously observed. 11. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the submission of Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate on substance is absolutely correct, namely that the bank guarantee was invoked on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that it was also invoked by the authorised officer. There can be little doubt that in the letter of invocation it is implicit that the guaranteed amount was the claim of the Delhi Municipal Corporation under the contact. 12. But for whatever reason the Municipal Corporation of Delhi forgot to state that the amount was claimed under the contract while invoking the bank guarantee. The Executive Engineer, Project III, Rohini made an omission in not invoking the bank guarantee expressly on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, but by writing for, North Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is through this little technical hole that the plaintiff gets a passage. Prima facie the guarantee was not invoked according to its terms. 13. The Executive Engineer, Project III, Rohini made an omission in not invoking the bank guarantee expressly on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, but by writing for, North Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is through this little technical hole that the plaintiff gets a passage. Prima facie the guarantee was not invoked according to its terms. 13. In the circumstances, I modify the above interim order by passing the following order: Provided the plaintiff renews the existing bank guarantee or furnishes a fresh bank guarantee for a like amount, by 10th October 2012, the first defendant Municipal Corporation of Delhi will not take any further steps with regard to invocation of the above bank guarantee on the basis of the letter of invocation dated 30th August 2012. 14. On the failure of the plaintiff to renew the bank guarantee as aforesaid, the first defendant will be entitled to obtain monies under the above bank guarantee forthwith after 10th October, 2012. This order will not preclude the first defendant from making invocation of the renewed bank guarantee or the fresh guarantee so furnished, according to the terms. The first defendant should give at least 72 working days hours' notice before invocation, to the plaintiff. 15. Nothing further remains in this application. Affidavits are not invited. 16. This application is disposed of by the above order. 17. The question of territorial jurisdiction is raised now. It was not raised at the time of consideration of the application. However, the point regarding territorial jurisdiction is kept open at the time of trial of the suit. All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.