STATE OF ASSAM Vs. N V INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order 43 Rule l(r) of the CPC is directed against the order dated 27.5.98 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (J) case No. 55/98 arising out of T.S. No. 98/98.

(2.) The respondent plaintiff M/s. N.V. International instituted Title Suit No. 98/98 stating, inter alia, that the respondent State of Assam had appointed the plaintiff as Distributor of the State Lotteries for a period of 3 (three) years and an agreement to that effect was executed in between the parties on 12.6.95. In terms of the said agreement the plaintiff provided the State Government with a bank guarantee of Rs.25,00,000/-. The bank guarantee for Rs.25,00,000/- was re-validated till 30.6.98. On 30.12.95, the plaintiff was informed that the State of Assam has decided to discontinue the Assam State Lotteries Draw whereupon certain litigation ensued in between the parties.

(3.) On 26.5.90 the plaintiff was informed by his banker that the State Govt. has invoked the bank guarantee for Rs.25,00,000/- and the bank is going to release the amount. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit praying for declaration that the proposed invocation of the bank guarantee is illegal and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from invoking/encashing the bank puarantee. The plaintiff also filed in Misc. Case No. 55/98 praying for temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamrup, Guwahati after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Advocate passed the impugned order. On perusal of the said order it is seen that the learned Govt. pleader has sought time to file objections against the prayer for injunction and Court also held that for filing written objection after obtaining necessary instruction, time is required to be given but the Court was of the view that if no interim order is passed restraining the defendants from encashing the bank guarantee, then the very purpose of issuing injunction will be frustrated. Therefore, the Court directed the parties to maintain the present status quo in respect of the said Bank guarantee as on the date of the order dated 27.5.98 until further orders and directed the defendants to file their objections. Hence the present appeal.