( 1 ) ON offer made by the first respondent being accepted, petitioner awarded the work of four laning from Km. 464 to Km. 474 of Nagpur-Hyderabad Section and km. 9. 4 to Km. 22. 3 of Hyderabad-Bangalore Section to the respondent.

( 2 ) FIRST respondent is a joint venture of the second and the third respondent.

( 3 ) A written agreement dated 31. 5. 2001 was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent. Documents referred to in para 4 of the agreement were deemed to form part of the agreement. Conditions of the contract as per NIT formed part of the agreement.

( 4 ) AS per conditions of the contract, petitioner was to pay in advance, certain stipulated amounts to the first respondent to enable it to mobilize the site. This advance was referred to in the contract as mobilization advance. Mobilization advance was to be utilized by the first respondent for purchasing and bringing to the site, equipment, plant, tools and tackles.

( 5 ) TO secure repayment of the amount received towards mobilization, first respondent was to furnish bank guarantees in favour of the petitioner. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 11. 23 crores to the first respondent towards mobilization. As per the contract, first respondent submitted seven bank guarantees, one guarantee was dated 23. 5. 2001, two guarantees were dated 6. 2. 2002 and four guarantees were dated 11. 7. 2001. Six guarantees were in sum of Rs. 1,87,21,989/- each and the seventh guarantee was in the sum of rs. 3,74,43,978/ -. All the bank guarantees were issued by the Bank of India, mayapuri Branch, New Delhi.

( 6 ) FIRST respondent proceeded to carry out the assigned job. From time to time, running bills were submitted and on certification, payments were released after recovering the proportionate sum from each running bill towards adjustment of advance mobilization. As and when the mobilization advance got recovered, from time to time bank guarantees were being returned. Admitted position between the parties is that four out of the seven bank guarantees, three guarantees in sum of rs. 1,87,21,989/- and one guarantee in sum of Rs. 3,74,43,978/- remained outstanding and the other three, each in sum of Rs. 1,87,21,989/- were returned by the petitioner to the first respondent.

( 7 ) PETITIONER learnt that the bank guarantees which were submitted were forged documents. An FIR was lodged. It has not been disputed by the respondents in the present proceedings that indeed, bank guarantees were not issued by Bank of india, Mayapuri Branch.

( 8 ) AS per the statement recorded by this court on 3. 2. 2005 of Sh. Vinod goel, a Director of the third respondent, it had obtained the bank guarantees through one Alam Kishan, a financial consultant. Be that as it may, having found that it had been cheated, petitioner proceeded to secure itself by filing the instant petition praying that the respondents be restrained from removing or disposing of any of its plants, equipment and machinery brought at site. Directions were prayed to be issued to the police authorities to provide security to the machinery.

( 9 ) AS per the petition, apart from the mobilization advance, petitioner had paid a further sum of Rs. 2. 52 crores to the first respondent towards secured advance for material. It is, thus, stated in the petition that apart from the undeducted mobilization advance, further sum is recoverable towards advance for purchase of material.

( 10 ) AS per reply filed by the first respondent, it has admitted that it has received Rs. 11. 23 crores towards mobilization advance. However, it is averred that petitioner has recovered Rs. 6. 09 crores from out of the running bills. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 2. 16 crores has been retained by the petitioner towards retention money and in this manner, petitioner has recovered Rs. 8. 25 crores, leaving a sum of Rs. 2. 98 crores as recoverable.

( 11 ) IN respect of secured advance t