- (1.) The question now before the Court is whether the order of status quo regarding transfer of funds passed by me on 7th September, 2012 and continued from time to time should be further continued. There is no dispute whatsoever that the bank guarantee in question furnished by State Bank of India to the defendant for Rs. 4,30,00,000/- at the instance of the plaintiff was otherwise an unconditional bank guarantee payable without demur by the bank. But, nevertheless, it had two conditions, which had to be fulfilled on its invocation. A written demand had to be made by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. That written demand had to make a claim for the guaranteed amount stating that the above amount was due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the concerned agreement.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, attacks the invocation of the bank guarantee made by a letter dated 30th August, 2012, which is Annexure-EE at page 188 of the petition. That letter was written by the Executive Engineer [Project-III], Rohini Zone under the letter head of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. He says that North Delhi Municipal Corporation is not the same as Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, hence, the invocation is bad not being according to its terms.
(3.) Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate for the defendant Corporation submits that North Delhi Municipal Corporation is a division of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and there is/nothing wrong in the invocation of the bank guarantee. Furthermore, it is submitted by him that the concerned agreement dated 16th December, 2009 being Annexure-E at page 48 of the agreement would show that the agreement was executed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi by the self-same Executive Engineer. The guarantee document would also show that it was addressed to him.;