Gujarat High Court
Welspun Projects Limited vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 23 February, 2014
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
C/AO/84/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 84 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2021 of 2014
In
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 84 of 2014
===============================================
WELSPUN PROJECTS LIMITED....Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1....Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance:
MR HARDIK P MODH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Date : 23/02/2014 ORAL COMMON ORDER
1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Percy Kavina appearing with learned advocate Mr.Hardik P.Modh and learned advocate Mr.Amit Laddha for the appellant.
2. It is not disputed that by joint pursis dated 05.08.2013 signed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 in Special Civil Suit No.205 of 2013 before the civil Court, Gandhinagar, it was agreed upon by defendant No.1 that they shall not invoked the suit bank guarantee in question till the hearing and injunction application. It was also agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall renew the bank guarantee in question till 30.09.2013. The relevant para reads as under:-
"The defendant shall not invoke the Suit Bank Guarantee in question till the hearing of injunction application which may be fixed on 31.8.13. The Plaintiff shall renew the Bank Guarantee in question till 30.09.2013 which is expiring on 27.8.13."
3. Therefore, at present though learned senior counsel has Page 1 of 3 C/AO/84/2014 ORDER explained all the details about proposal and other details between the parties, the fact remains the defendant itself has agreed not to invoke the bank guarantee for certain period, which was practically uncertain since the confirmation is to the effect that the bank guarantee shall not be invoked till the hearing of the injunction application in the pending suit.
4. At present the fact remains that in the Special Civil Suit No.205 of 2013 the trial Court by impugned order dated 20.02.2014 below Exh.22 passed by the trial Court has ordered to return to plaint to the plaintiff holding that suit is not maintainable under the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The relevant paras reads as under:-
"1. As per Order 7 Rule 10 & 10(a) the Plaint is returned as the present suit is not maintainable under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
2. Plaintiff is directed to consider the present suit as per the proper jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal."
5. Therefore, it becomes clear that though injunction application is not decided on merits, when the trial Court has came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction, practically the interim arrangement between the parties shall remain inforce till matter has been adjudicated on its on merits by the appropriate judicial authority.
6. However, learned advocate for the appellant has pointed out that immediately passing of such order on 20.02.2014, the respondent No.1 has instructed the bank to encash the bank guarantee in favour of the appellant No.1 and therefore, appellant is before this Court for appropriate relief.
7. Irrespective of merits and other issues that may be taken care Page 2 of 3 C/AO/84/2014 ORDER of hereinafter, considering the fact that practically when respondent No.1 has agreed not to invoke the suit bank guarantee in question till the hearing of injunction application, it would be appropriate to continue such position till next date.
8. Therefore, both the respondents are hereby restrained from invoking the bank guarantee in any manner till 07.03.2014. However, appellant shall keep the bank guarantee alive and operational i.e. renew it, till hearing of this Appeal From Order. Appellant is further directed to furnish additional bank guarantee of Rs. 10 Lac in the name of Registrar General of this High Court on or before 03.03.2014 so as to meet with the claim of compensation and interest etc., if any, by the respondents, because of pendency of this appeal.
9. It is obvious that the trial Court has not followed the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10(a) in proper perspective and therefore, impugned order is stayed till next date.
10. Direct service today is permitted. List on 07.03.2014.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) dharmendra Page 3 of 3