MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an interim order restraining the respondents from invoking the Bank Guarantees in question.

2. On 11th September, 2015, the following order was passed:-

“I.A. No.19186/2015

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

O.M.P.(I) 515/2015

Issue notice to the respondents by all modes, returnable on 01st October, 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner installed the fire fighting system in the respondent’s factory as back as in December, 2013 and the respondents released all the payments under the two contracts to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner issued two bank guarantees to the respondent on 15th October, 2013 with respect to the defect liability period. The bank guarantees are valid up to 13th September, 2015. It is further submitted that there is a dispute with respect to the leakage in the fire fighting pipe lines. According to the petitioner there no defect in the system. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 08th September, 2015, the respondent has invoked both the bank guarantees. It is further submitted that there are special equities in favour of petitioner and therefore, the invocation of bank guarantees be stayed.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the invocation of bank guarantees number (i) BG No. GOOIBGP132880001 dated 15.10.2013 issued by Karur Vysya Bank for an amount of Rs.16,15,000/- and (ii) BG No. GOOIBGP132880002 dated 15.10.2013 issued by Karur Vysya Bank for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- are stayed subject to the petitioner keeping the bank guarantees alive. This order is passed at 03.10 P.M.

The competent officers of both the parties shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

Copy of this order be sent to the respondents along with the notice.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner under signature of Court Master.

Sd/-

(J.R.Midha)

Judge”

3. After filing the reply, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 had argued that the present petition is not maintainable for the following reasons:-

(i) This Court does not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the present petition.

(ii) The Bank Guarantees in question are unconditional, as the petitioner has failed to set out any irretrievable injustice or special equities or fraud in order to justify an injunction on invocation of the Bank Guarantees. The petitioner has no basis whatsoever to seek an injunction on the said invocation. The interim order passed is liable to be vacated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that the Bank Guarantees in question are unconditional ones. However, he submits that the respondent No.1 has not suffered any loss due to non-performance. There is no further notice after the completion of the work, thus, the Bank Guarantees cannot be encashed. Counsel has referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jainsons Clothing Corporation v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and Another, (1986) 30 DLT 359 (DB), paras 16, 17 & 18. It is pertinent to mention here that the above said judgment has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and Another v. Jainsons Clothing Corporation(1994) 6 SCC 597.

5. As far as the principle with respect to the grant of injunction in unconditional Bank Guarantee’s case is concerned, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court number of times, including in the recent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court speaking through Hon’ble Sh.Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sh.Sanjeev Sanchdeva, JJ. in the case of Zillion Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. Fab-Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 224(2015) DLT 371 where the following decisions of the Supreme Court have been discussed:-

(i) The Supreme Court in th