V V GAUPTA Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submits that this application can be taken up for disposal straightway and there is no necessity for filing a reply. The defendant No.3 is the bank which had extended the bank guarantee in question.

(2.) The counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that earlier, this court had, by an order dated 01.03.2006, disposed of IA Nos. 9251/2005 and IA No.2458/2006 on the ground that those applications, which were applications where an injunction in respect of the same bank guarantee had been sought, were premature inasmuch as there had been no invocation of the bank guarantee by the defendants 1 and 2. He further pointed out that now an invocation letter has been issued by the defendants 1 and 2 on 01.03.2006 itself. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this invocation letter is not in terms of the bank guarantee and, therefore, he is entitled to an injunction against the defendants from any payments being made consequent upon the invocation letter. The counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submitted that the invocation letter of 01.03.2006 was in order.

(3.) It would be necessary to examine the terms of the bank guarantee as well as the invocation letter to appreciate the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The first and second paragraphs of the bank guarantee are relevant for this purpose and the same are reproduced hereunder:-