- (1.) The petitioner herein is justifiably aggrieved by the manner in which the Trial Court has approached a matter pertaining to an unconditional bank guarantee and the unnecessary adjournments granted by the Trial Court in allowing the plaintiff to enjoy an undeserving order. An unconditional bank guarantee was furnished in favour of the petitioner herein for a sum in excess of Rs. 2.21 crore. The following two clauses of the bank guarantee are sufficient to understand the scope thereof and the obligation of the bank to pay upon a first written demand being made thereunder by the beneficiary: "4. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration inter alia of the Owner granting the Suppliers the Contract, the Bank hereby unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees and undertakes, on a written demand, to immediately pay to the Owner any amount so demanded (by way of one or more claims) not exceeding in the aggregate Rs. 2,21,25,000.00 (Rupees Two Crore Twenty-one lac Twenty-five thousand Only) without any demur, reservation, contest or protest and/or without reference to the Supplier and without the Owner needing to provide or show to the Bank grounds or reasons or give any justification for such demand for the sum/s demanded. 5. The decision of the Owner to invoke this Guarantee and as to whether the Supplier has not performed its obligations under the Contract shall be binding on the Bank. The Bank acknowledges that any such demand by the Owner of the amounts payable by the Bank to the Owner shall be final, binding and conclusive evidence in respect of the amounts payable by the Supplier to the Owner. Any such demand made by the Owner on the Bank shall be conclusive and binding, notwithstanding any difference between the Owner and the Supplier of any dispute raised, invoked, threatened or pending before any Court, tribunal, arbitrator or any other authority."
(2.) For reasons which are not necessary to be gone into at the stage, the petitioning beneficiary invoked the bank guarantee by making a written demand on the bank. That a written demand was made on the bank is not in dispute.
(3.) The opposite party No. 1, at whose behest the bank guarantee was furnished, filed Title Suit No. 530 of 2014 and sought an ex-parte interlocutory injunction therein. The Trial Court obliged the plaintiff, without a sentence of reason in support of the order restraining payment under the unconditional bank guarantee.;