MITHAL J. - (1.) The F.A.F.O. is directed against an order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing on application for issue of ad interim injunction and restraining the Railway authorities from encashing the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant in connection with a contract entered into between the parties.
(2.) The short questions that arise for determination, apart from other somewhat irrelevant and almost insignificant points urged are, (i) Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for issue of temporary injunction ? and, (ii) Whether the suit is bad for want of a notice under S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?
(3.) The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the Railways for supply of angle iron as per specifications after re-rolling raw material to be supplied by the Railway. There is no material disagreement about the quantity of angle iron to be supplied after re-rolling against a given quantity of raw material after accounting for agreed loss of raw material in the re-rolling process. It is undisputed that against the bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- furnished by the plaintiff, 257.770 metric tons of billets (raw material) was supplied. Against this the plaintiff supplied only 102.899 metric tons of angle iron (92.70 metric tons, according to defendants). Although the balance quantity remained lying with the plaintiff no further supply of angle iron after re-rolling was admittedly made. The entire re-rolling work was stipulated to be completed by 30-6-1982 but this was not done. According to the plaint allegation, conditions in Punjab where its plants were located were far from being normal due to after effects of 'Operation Blue Star' and this prevented the plaintiff to carry out the work undertaken by it. It is also alleged that breach was made by the defendant by failing to supply the balance quantity of raw material and to extend time for completing the contract.;