Karnataka High Court
Aneja Constructions (India) Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2014
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.76070/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LTD.,
MALLIKARJUN FARM HOUSE,
NEAR KAVERI PUNJAB DHABA,
P B ROAD, PALE, PO.CHABBI,
HUBLi. RPTD., BY ITS PA HOLDER
PRITIPALSINGH
S/O HARBHAJANSINGH ANEJA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. SUNIL S.DESAI, FOR
M/S GOULAY ASSOCIATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD.
2. CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
K R R D A, NIRMAN BHAVAN, II FLOOR,
DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJIJINAGAR,
BANGALORE, WORKING UNDER
PRIME MINISTER GRAM SADAK YOJANA
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
(PROJECT DIVISION DHARWAD)
WORKING UNDER P M G S Y,
:2:
SCHEME, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
DHARWAD.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P M G S Y, SCHEME, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. ANAND K.NAVALGIMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & AR2,
SMT. P.R.BENTUR, ADV. FOR R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.13.4.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE &
PRL. JMFC, DHARWAD, ON IA NO.4 IN OS.NO.646/2011 AS PER
ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER DTD.08.02.2013 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, DHARWAD
IN MA NO.34/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from encashing the bank guarantee.
2. The contract between the parties is not in dispute. The defendant wanted to encash the bank guarantee. It is settled law, :3: the Courts should not interfere in these contractual matters especially granting injunctions by restraining the parties from encashing the bank guarantees. The only circumstance under which the Courts can interfere are cases where serious allegations of fraud is played or in case of irreparable injury. The two Courts on consideration of the material on record have concurrently held the case would not fall within those exceptions. This Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot and should not re-appreciate the material on record. The Apex Court has been repeatedly asserting that the Courts should not interfere in these bank guarantee matters. The law of the land is to be respected. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim order granted in this petition stands vacated.
SD/-
JUDGE ckl