- (1.) Heard learned counsel on both sides in great detail.
(2.) It is really a dispute between a Banker and its customer. The writ petitioner had a credit facility with the second respondent-Bank. According to the petitioner, the Directors of the petitioner Company have been replaced in its Extraordinary General meeting. The Bank was apparently not informed of the proposed change. Bona fides of the action being suspected by the Bank, the Bank called for additional security and also for furnishing a fresh bank guarantee to secure its loan and it was in that situation, thereafter petitioner has come to this Court, essentially complaining that if the banking transactions are abruptly stopped by the bank, the petitioner will suffer and that would benefit neither of the parties.
(3.) On the petitioner assuring that immediately after the Durga Puja, it will elect the Managing Director or appoint the Managing Director and the Managing Director as well as the members of his family would provide their personal guarantees, we were persuaded to pass an interim order (notwithstanding the fact that this was really a dispute between a banker and its customer) directing that on the Company fulfilling the promise by furnishing personal guarantees of the Managing Director and the members of his family, the petitioner would be allowed to continue to operate the account and the petitioner could also encash cheques and other negotiable instruments through its account by withdrawing the amount covered by those instruments, duly presented in the bank.;