Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... vs Union Bank Of India on 16 June, 2015
W.P.No.6181/2015
16.6.2015
Shri Pankaj Dubey, counsel for petitioner.
Shri A.S.Thakur, counsel for respondent no.1.
Shri Sanjeev Bansal, counsel for respondent no.2. Challenging a communication made by the respondent no.1/Bank on 18.4.2015 said to have been received by the respondent no.2 on 20.4.2015 in the matter of encashing of Bank Guarantee/bank drafts by the Union Bank of India, this writ petition has been filed. The only relief claimed in this writ petition is for restraining the bank from encashing the bank draft/Guarantee.
However when the matter is taken up for hearing today, it transpires that the draft issued by the Bank has been encashed by the petitioner on 12.5.2015 and money transferred to the petitioner's account by the bank. As a consequence the bank guarantee stands invoked.
That being so no further indulgence is called for in this writ petition, as the request made in the communication dated 18.4.2015 cannot be complied with now due to subsequent development, i.e. encashment of the Bank Draft/Guarantee.
However the learned counsel for respondent no.2 Shri Sanjeev Bansal brought to the notice of this Court certain facts to say that inspite of injunction granted by the trial Court exercising jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred W.P.No.6181/2015 to as 'Act' for short) the petitioner and Bank have violated the injunction order and have got the amount transferred to the petitioner's account malafidely in violation of the order of injunction that was passed and communicated. He therefore prays for initiating action against the petitioner for this act of contempt in disobeying the order of injunction.
If that be so, respondent no.2 is at liberty to bring these facts to the notice of the trial Court where the proceedings under section 9 of the Act is pending and if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that deliberately and in violation to the order of injunction the Bank Guarantee was invoked and encashed, it is for the Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and initiate action and it is for the respondent no.2 to move the trial Court where the proceedings under section 9 of the Act are pending and prays for taking action for contempt, if so desired. However while considering the question of contempt, the trial Court shall consider the matter after hearing all the concerned and the interim order passed by this Court on 1.6.2015 shall not come in the way of the trial Court, while proceeding with the question of considering contempt, if any, committed or breach of injunction, if any, in the matter.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (Ms.VANDANA KASREKAR) M JUDGE JUDGE