SUDHIR RANJAN ROY, J. - (1.) The above revisional applications arise out of three different orders of injunction issued at the instance of the opposite parties, restraining the petitioner Corporation from enforcing the Bank guarantees executed in its favour. They involve identical questions of fact and law. This common judgment will therefore, dispose of all the three cases. It will be sufficient if we refer to the material facts of C. O. No. 1817 of 1984 only.
(2.) The defendant-petitioner, the National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. which is a Government Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 entered into a contract with Coal India Ltd. for setting up a Housing Complex at Dankuni, Hooghly. On or about 23rd February, 1982, the petitioner Corporation invited tender for construction of different buildings at Dankuni Coal Complex and after negotiations an offer was made by the plaintiff-opposite party. M/s. G. Ranjan, a firm by their letter dated 22-4-82. A bi-lateral agreement was executed thereafter by and between the petitioner and the opposite party wherein it was provided inter alia that a mobilisation advance to the extent of 5% of the value of the contract will be paid to the opposite party contractor by the petitioner against production of Bank guarantee from a nationalised bank. It was agreed that an interest of 18.5% shall be charged against the mobilisation advance and the advance including interest shall be recovered on pro rata basis from the running bills of the opposite party and the recovery will be completed before 80% of the work is executed.
(3.) A letter of intent was issued by the petitioner on May 12, 1982 and on May 7, 1983 a provisional work order was issued containing the terms and conditions including special terms and conditions of the contract.;