Karnataka High Court
Netafim Meil Joint Venture vs Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd on 18 April, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
COMAP No. 100014 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.100014 OF 2022 (-)
BETWEEN:
NETAFIM-MEIL JOINT VENTURE
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT S-2,
TECHNOCRATS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD 580037,
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEAD PARTNER AND POWER OF
ATTORNEY M/S MEGHA ENGINEERING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,
S-2, TECHNOCRAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500037,
THROUGH K SOMARAJU,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
HM
Location: High
BHARATHI Court of
Karnataka,
HM Dharwad
Date:
2023.04.20
11:17:57
+0530 ...APPELLANT
(SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA
S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA LTD
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956,
GOVT FO KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING,
LIASON OFFICE, PWD OFFICER,
ANNEXE BUILDING,III FLOOR, K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001,
-2-
COMAP No. 100014 of 2022
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA LTD.,
ARBA DIVISION,
ALAMATTI-587201,
BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
3. CHIEF ENGINEER
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM,
DAM ZONE, ALAMATTI-586201,
BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT
4. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
RASHTRAPATHI ROAD BRANCH,
1ST FLOOR, KASUVA COMPLEX,
R P ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500003,
TELANGANA STATE
5. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH,
PLOT NO. 1271, ROAD NO. 63,
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500033,
TELANGANA STATE
6. UNION OF INDIA
SECUNDERABAD BRANCH,
H.NO. 1-2-163, LG-1,
BHUVANA TOWERS, S D ROAD,
SECUNDARABAD-500003,
TELANGANA STATE
7. UNION BANK OF INDIA
ERSTWHILE ANDHRA BANK,
BALANAGAR BRANCH, S-1,
TECHNOCRATS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD 500037
8. STATE BANK OF INDIA
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE BRANCH,
3RD AND 4TH FLOOR,
MIDTOWN HEIGHTS,
VADODARA-390007,
GUJARAT
-3-
COMAP No. 100014 of 2022
9. STATE BANK OF INDIA
COMMERCIAL CLIENT GROUP BRANCH,
DOOR NO. 8-2 684/2/A,
ANAND BANJARA COLONY,
ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500034
10. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
CORPORATION LIMITED
GLOBAL TRADE RECEIVABLES FINANCE,
4TH FLOOR, 7 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI
AND MISS. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED ON I A NO.2 IN O.S NO.1/2022
BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, AT
BAGALKOT, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The appellant who is the appellant/applicant before the Commercial Court in Commercial O.S.No.1/2022 had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil procedure, seeking a restraint order against the -4- COMAP No. 100014 of 2022 respondents/defendants from encashing the Bank Guarantee worth Rs.125,22,10,710/-, till disposal of the suit. The Commercial Court dismissed the application and consequently this Commercial Appeal/Petition has been filed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the respondents, this Court finds that, the Commercial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that, what was sought by the petitioner/appellant was only a direction to the respondents not to encash the Bank Guarantee, till disposal of the suit.
3. Having regard to the admitted fact that there is no notice coming from the respondents furnishing reasons for invoking the Bank Guarantee, the Commercial Court should have directed the respondents not to invoke the Bank Guarantee and at the same time, a direction should have also given to the plaintiff/appellant to keep the Bank Guarantee alive, till the disposal of the suit. -5- COMAP No. 100014 of 2022
4. This suggestion made by the Court is accepted by both the learned counsels.
5. In that view of the matter, this petition/appeal is partly allowed while modifying the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, at the hands of the plaintiff/appellant in the following terms.
6. The application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC at the hands of the plaintiff/appellant is partly allowed while directing the respondents not to invoke the Bank Guarantee, till disposal of the suit. At the same time, a direction is also given to the plaintiff/appellant to keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the disposal of the suit.
7. Having regard to the nature of the litigation brought before the Commercial Court, we request the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge to make all endeavors to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as -6- COMAP No. 100014 of 2022 possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
8. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3