M/S. Kse Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs The Project Director Bangaladesh Rural ... on 21 May, 2021

[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Calcutta High Court

M/S. Kse Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs The Project Director Bangaladesh Rural ... on 21 May, 2021

Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh

OD-2

                              ORDER SHEET
                              AP 232 OF 2021
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                              ORIGINAL SIDE


                  M/S. KSE ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.
                              Versus
 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR BANGALADESH RURAL ELECTRIFICATION BOARD
                             AND ANR.



  BEFORE:

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH
  Date : 21ST MAY, 2021.



                                                                      Appearance:
                                                          Mr. S. Choudhury, Adv.
                                                               Mr. R. Dutta, Adv.
                                                               Mr. V. Sastry, Adv.
                                                                 Mr. T. Bose, Adv.


                                                              Mr. K. Thaker, Adv.




       The Court : Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

petitioner, according to his submission the performance guarantee which was

issued has been sought to be invoked by a letter dated 5/5/2021 in respect of

BG No.5630602266 dated 20/10/2016 amount : USD 139,980.00. He has also

drawn the attention of this Court wherein between the self-same parties in AP
                                          2




No.229 of 2021 and AP No.230 of 2021 orders have been passed injuncting the

respondent No. 1 from invocation of the letter dated 5th May, 2021 issued by the

Project Director of the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2 (Bank Authorities) having its branch at Bangladesh.

Mr. Thaker, learned Advocate appears on behalf of Citibank NA, India Operations (Respondent No. 2).

Learned Advocate vehemently opposes the contention advanced by Mr. Chowdhury. He relies upon number of authorities to substantiate his arguments. The respondent No. 1 did not appear before this Court in spite of service as submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

I have taken into account the submission of both the parties and orders passed by this Court in AP No. 229 of 2021 and AP No. 230 of 2021. Having regard to the nature of issues involved which are similar and identical, this Court is persuaded to injunct the respondent No. 1 from encashing the bank guarantee and stay the respondent No. 1 from giving any effect to the invocation letter dated May 5, 2021. The petitioner is directed to produce the copy of this order before the respondent No. 2 at its office at Kolkata and Dhaka.

The respondents will be at liberty to file affidavit in opposition within three weeks from date. Reply, if any, a week thereafter.

Let this matter appear under the heading "Adjourned Motion", four weeks hence.

The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the order upon respondent No. 1 and file affidavit on the adjourned date.

The respondent No. 1 is at liberty to apply for vacating the interim order before the returnable date, if so advised.

(TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.) S.De

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court