DELTA MARINE COMPANY Vs. ATLANTA INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in Title Suit No. 78 of 2001 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khurda, has preferred this revision challenging to the impugned judgment passed on 3.12.2002 by the Addl. District Judge, Khurda.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit praying for a permanent injunction against the defendants not to encash the bank guarantee furnished by him in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on various grounds including the ground of fraud and non -payment of the arrear dues plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. which was registered as M.J.C. No. 78 of 2001. Plaintiff prayed for a temporary injunction. The defendants contested the Misc. Case, inter alia, on the ground of absence of any fraud and executability of the contract to encash the bank guarantee and they also raised lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Khurda to decide the claim in view of the stipulation in the contract by conferring jurisdiction in the Courts at Bombay. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, a further narration of the details of the fact is not necessary.

(3.) IN the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 436, the Apex Court, taking a stock of several previous decisions of that Court, sufficiently put the principle as to in what type of cases injunction can be granted and when injunction should be refused. In that respect, the Apex Court has said that :