TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. V THIYAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent filed a suit, O.S.No.1604 of 1990 in the District Munsif Madurai Town against the second respondent herein viz., the Union Bank of India, impleading the petitioner herein for the relief of a permanent injunction, restraining the from making any payment to the petitioner on the basis of the suit bank guarantees, pending adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent 31.3.1991. Even a bare perusal of the reliefs sought for clearly shows that the petitioner a necessary party to the suit. THE suit was directly meant to prejudice the interests petitioner. Admittedly, there was a contract between the petitioner and the first respondent with respect to certain works the value of which is said to be Rs.l,91,43,571. THE respondent had apparently furnished bank guarantees in accordance with the Disputes had arisen between the petitioner and the first respondent in respect contract. THE petitioner was apparently trying to encash the amounts under bank guarantee. To prevent such an action, the first respondent had filed the suit without impleading petitioner. Pending disposal of the suit, Interlocutory Application, I.A.No.1089 of 1990 filed seeking an interim injunction. On this application, an ad-interim order was passed 21.9.1990 in the following terms: 'Heard the petitioner and perused the documents filed in support of the claim. THE petitioner has brought out a case in prima facie, hence ad-interim injunction and notice 23.10.1990.'.

(2.) ANOTHER suit, O.S.No.8800 of 1990 had been filed in the City Civil Court, Madras in of the very same contract. In the suit, reliefs had been sought for with reference withdrawal of certain items of work, cancellation of the contract and to preserve the original agreement between the parties. Pending disposal of the suit, four Interlocutory Applications were one of which is I.A.No.19688 of 1990 to restrain the petitioner from encashing the guarantees given through the second respondent-bank. In this suit, however, the petitioner has been made as a party. All the four interlocutory applications were heard and disposed of on 28.11.1990 dismissing the applications.