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