SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN PALLI, VIKRAM AGGARWAL, JJ.
OFB Tech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
KCC Buildcon Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
FAO-COM-10 of 2024(O&M)
Decided On : 09-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sangam Kheterpal, Advocate and Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate and Mr. Rajneesh Budhiraja, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Anand Chibbar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Sehgal, Advocate and Mr. Pranshu, Advocate Mr. Vishal Saini, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate, for Respondent No.1.

The court emphasized the obligation to decide injunction applications within 30 days as per CPC, ensuring timely justice in commercial disputes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 3A - Injunction application - The appellant-defendant No.1 challenged the order restraining it from invoking a bank guarantee pending the decision on the injunction application - The Commercial Court was directed to decide the injunction application within 30 days as per Order XXXIX Rule 3A. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Appeal - The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution of injunction applications to prevent undue delay in justice. (Paras 8, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-defendant No.1 invoked a bank guarantee of Rs. 1.5 crore, leading to a suit by respondent No.1-plaintiff for the second bank guarantee of Rs. 3.5 crore, which was stayed by the Commercial Court.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was disposed of with a directive for the Commercial Court to hear and decide the injunction application promptly, ensuring compliance with procedural timelines.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Commercial Court's stay on the bank guarantee was justified and the timeline for deciding the injunction application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the injunction application must be resolved within 30 days to uphold the principles of timely justice, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules.

Result: Appeal disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The appellant-defendant No.1 assails the order dated 15.04.2024, passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, vide which, while issuing notice of the injunction application preferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC"), it has restrained the appellant-defendant No.1 from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee issued by the IndusInd Bank (respondent-defendant No.2), at the request of respondent No.1-plaintiff.

2. A suit for declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant. The parties had business relations, wherein respondent No.1-plaintiff used to procure raw materials like bitumen, petroleum products, steel and other products from the appellant-defendant No.1, to use in its business of infrastructure and road construction across the country.

3. Though no formal contract had been executed between the parties and all procurements were based on purchase orders and counter delivery invoices/challans, two bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 3.5 crore and Rs. 1.5 crore each had been furnished at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff in favour of the appellant-defendant on 21.08.2021. They were extended from time to time and were last extended till August 2024. Upon certain disputes having arisen between the parties, bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 1.5 crore was invoked/encashed by the appellant-defendant No.1. With regard to the second bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 3.5 crore, the suit in question was filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff.

4. While issuing notice in the said suit, encashment of the bank guarantee of Rs. 3.5 crore was stayed, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant-defendant No.1 submits that the Commercial Court erred in granting the stay. Reference has been made to various documents on record.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.1-plaintiff, while causing appearance on notice having been served, submits that the order is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference. He also submits that the pleadings have since been completed and the case is now listed for 14.05.2024 and it has been ordered that arguments on the injunction application shall be heard on 14.05.2024. Reference has been made to orders dated 22.04.2024 and 04.05.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, in this regard.

7. It has been submitted that even otherwise, since the impugned order was passed on 15.04.2024, the Commercial Court, in view of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, is under an obligation to dispose of the injunction application within a period of 30 days on account of the ex party injunction having been granted.

8. To this, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant-defendant No.1 submits that if the injunction application is decided within the aforesaid period, he would not have any objection and would not press for a decision on merits in the present appeal.

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. Vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2024, the Commercial Court restrained the appellant-defendant No.1 from invoking the bank guarantee bearing No.OGT0005210057750 issued by the IndusInd Bank till the next date of hearing, which was fixed as 22.04.2024. The operative part of the said order is as under:-

"7. Notice of the suit was well as the injunction application be issued to defendants for 22.04.2024 through postal courier as well as through speed post in BNPL scheme on filing of copies of plaint, registered cover etc. as well as through email on email id of defendant mentioned in memo of parties on filing of soft copy of summons, plaint and supporting documents and from email id of the office of learned District & Sessions Judge, Gurugram. Process be filed forthwith.

8. Till then the defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top