SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

The court question urged on both sides only leads to one aspect, does the present case fall in any of the exceptions to the general rule of non-granting of ad interim injunction restraining encashment of bank guarantees. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted while relying upon other judgments as well as recent judgment of this court in M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs. M/s. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., OMP No. 213/2005, Decided on : November 24, 2005 [2006 (1) Arb. LR 16 (Del.)], that the present case is squarely covered and undoubtedly falls in the specified exceptions and petitioners are entitled to injunction against the respondents. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the judgment of this court in M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. is of no avail to the petitioners inasmuch as its correctness and elucidation of law can be questioned on the following reasons :

(a) On facts, the judgment of this court in M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. has distinguishable features which would render the judgment inconsequential or of any benefit to the petitioners.

(b) The law in relation to bank guarantee have not undergone any change or expansion by passage of time and as such the judgment is based on incorrect legal premise.

(c) The court cannot go into the matters or disputes which are directly or indirectly touching upon the clause of the underlining contract while considering an application for grant of injunction. Such an approach is impermissible in law.

(d) The judgment of this court does not enunciate correct principles of law in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. V. M. Jog Engineering Ltd. and others, (2001) 1 SCC 663 = 2001 (Suppl.) Arb. LR 572 (SC); U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs. Sumac International Limited, (1997) 1 SCC 568 = 1996 (Suppl.) Arb. LR 476 (SC); and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others, (1995) 6 SCC 68 = 1995 (2) Arb. LR 482 (SC), as no case of special equities is made out either in that judgment or in the present case. Such a determination is beyond the limited jurisdiction of the court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

As far as the first and the last submissions made on behalf of the respondents are concerned, it is not for this court to examine these issues which would squarely fall within the domain of the appellate forum in the event the judgment of this court in M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. is challenged. Suffice it to note that all the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have been considered and/or referred to by this court in that judgment. It is a considered opinion of the court and would have to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the accepted norms or principles of ratio decidendi. The court would, thus, examine the said judgments only from the point of view of its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case, or if apparently, the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases is in contradiction thereto.

Petitioner No. 1 is a company which is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Delhi, while petitioner No. 2 is a company with its registered office at Toranto, Ontario, Canada. Both these petitioners entered into a joint venture agreement on 16th March, 1993 to jointly prepare and submit bids in the name of Continental Foundation Joint Venture (CFJV) with the respondents. The respondents invited bids for civil works of the Nathpa Jhakri Hydro-Electric Project (1500 MW) in four major packages. On 27th September, 1993 an agreement was entered into between the respondents and CFJV for execution of civil works of Contract No. 2.1 with the specifications stated therein. After commencement of the work, CFJV diligently executed the con