Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 575 (UTT)

Amrit Dwellers P. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank

2016-09-15

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1, his agents, partners, transferees, servants, attorney or anyone claiming through them not to release the amount of the bank guarantee no. 1532ILG004614 dated 01.03.2014 amounting to Rs.150 lakhs in favour of the respondent no.2 till the disposal of the interim relief application pending before the Civil Judge (SD), Dehradun on O.S. No. 473 of 2016 M/s Amrit dwellers vs. Punjab National Bank and anr., in any way, whatsoever and further the interim relief application (paper no. 6C2) may kindly be decided within the stipulated time. 2. Briefly stated that the petitioner is a company limited by liability and deals in the construction of Highways, Excavation work, Power Project Work, Mining Work etc. and is an approved Govt. A Class contractor, whereas the respondent is the banker of the petitioner and is a branch of the Punjab National Bank. The petitioner is working with respondent no.2 for the past several years. To fulfill the condition to work with respondent no.2, the petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.150 lacs in the name of respondent no. 2. Thus, the petitioner applied for the same with respondent no.1/Bank, on which the Bank issued a sanction letter of bank guarantee of Rs.150 lacs bearing no. 1532ILG004614 dated 01.03.2014 with the following facilities:- a. Facility No.1: Cash Credit (Book Debts) Fresh to the extent of Rs.1.75 crores. b. Facility No.2: Letter of guarantee (Performance) to the extent of Rs.5 crores for the purpose of issuing guarantee in favour of various Govt. Department/PSU’s etc. for performance, earnest money deposit, advance money received and such other purpose. 3. It is thereafter, the Bank issued above referred bank guarantee in favour of respondent no.2 on 01.03.2014, which was valid till 27.08.2014. The said bank guarantee was repeatedly renewed i.e. on 27.02.2015, 18.08.2015, 27.11.2015, 27.02.2016 and again on 25.02.2016. On 25.02.2016, the bank guarantee was valid uptill 27.08.2016 in favour of respondent no.2. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that infact the bank guarantee was renewed upto 27.08.2016 and thereafter, the same was not renewed despite moving application for its renewal on 23.08.2016. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent/BANK, without any reason, did not renew the said bank guarantee of the petitioner till date. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that infact the bank guarantee was renewed upto 27.08.2016 and thereafter, the same was not renewed despite moving application for its renewal on 23.08.2016. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent/BANK, without any reason, did not renew the said bank guarantee of the petitioner till date. When the petitioner contacted the BANK on 26.08.2016 and requested to renew the bank guarantee, the BANK did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter the aforesaid suit was instituted and along with the suit, the interim relief application was moved. It is contended that incase the amount of bank guarantee is transferred in favour of respondent no. 2, the petitioner will face irreparable loss and will not be able to recover such a huge amount of loss. 5. Per contra, learned Sr. counsel for the Bank, Mr. V.K. Kohli submits that infact the bank guarantee period had expired and after expiry of said period, on 27.08.2016 the bank guarantee was not renewed, as it was invoked by respondent no.2. It is also informed that on 05.09.2016, the amount involved in the bank guarantee has already been released in favour of respondent no.2. In this regard, learned counsel for the Bank also supplied a copy of the information received to him through his mail account. 6. Since the amount of bank guarantee has already been released in favour of respondent no.2 by the BANK on 05.09.2016, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted to the petitioner. 7. The petition is dismissed in limine.