NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 1623/2010.
(2.) IN this interlocutory application the Appellants -applicants have prayed for temporary injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 -3 (R.R.D.A) from invoking the Bank Guarantee No. 47/03 dated 15.10.03. It has been stated that after the decree was passed by learned Court below, the undertaking given by the said Respondents has come to an end. During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondents had given the undertaking that the Defendant -Respondent Nos. 1 -3 will not invoke the Bank guarantee. Now since the Plaintiffs -Appellants' suit has been dismissed, the Respondent Nos. 1 -3 will not be bound by the said undertaking and there is chance of invoking the Bank guarantee. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted that the Plaintiffs -Appellants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the Bank guarantee is invoked by the Respondent;; and as such they may be restrained from invoking Bank guarantee during pendency of this appeal. Learned Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in : 1997(1) SCC 568 and : AIR 1999 SC 3710 and contended that the principle laid down in the said decisions applies in the instant case.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 -3 submitted that the Bank guarantee is of definite amount and there is no question of suffering irreparable loss and injury by the Plaintiffs -Appellants. No ground for granting temporary injunction as such is made out by the Appellants. Similar relief was prayed for in the suit which after trial has been refused by learned Court below and suit has been dismissed. Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellants can get back their money, if the result of the appeal goes in their favour. The Respondent in a public authority and in a position to return the amount in case of any such decree of Court of law.;