Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mita India Private Limited And Another vs M/S Harpreet Industries And Others on 31 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097637
S. No.135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CR No.4221 of 2024
Date of Decision:31.07.2024
M/s Mita India Pvt. Ltd. and another .....Pe..oners
Vs.
Harpreet Industries and others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Mr. Kushagra Mahajan and
Mr. Mohammad Huzaifa, Advocate for the pe##oners.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
By way of this revision filed under Ar#cle 227 of the Cons#tu#on of India, pe##oners assail the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P.12) passed by learned Execu#ng Court, Ludhiana in Execu#on Case No.20385 of 2023 (CNR No.PBLD-0301- 6528-2023) #tled "Harpreet Industries Vs. M/s Mita India Pvt. Ltd., whereby applica#on of the decree holder for invoking the bank guarantee was allowed and the objec#ons raised by the judgment debtor (pe##oner herein) were dismissed. By way of this order, the concerned Bank Manager was also directed to release the amount of the bank guarantee in favour of the decree holder.
2. As the perusal of the paper book would reveal that a suit for recovery filed by the plain#ff- Harpreet Industries (respondent No.1 herein) was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on 05.01.2018 (Annexure P.1). The defendant filed an appeal and moved an applica#on under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC to stay the opera#on of the judgment and decree passed by the Court. Vide order dated 15.05.2019 (copy Annexure P.2), learned Addi#onal District Judge, Ludhiana stayed the opera#on of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, subject to the appellant- defendant furnishing a bank guarantee before the Execu#ng Court to the tune of `45 lakhs. Pursuant to this order, the appellant/ defendant furnished the bank guarantee as issued by HDFC Bank (respondent No.2 herein) for an amount of `45 lakhs with ini#al validity period upto 23.11.2019 which was extended from #me to #me, with last validity period upto 24.05.2023.
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 22:13:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097637 CR No.4221 of 2024 -2- The appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018 of the trial Court was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 24.08.2023 (Annexure P.6). Defendant/ pe##oner herein filed RSA No.3838 of 2023 (O&M) before this Court but concededly, no stay was granted by this Court, though that RSA is s#ll pending.
In the mean#me, the plain#ff/ decree holder/ respondent No.1 filed execu#on pe##on on 14.11.2023 (copy Annexure P.8) and also moved an applica#on (Annexure P.10) for invoking the bank guarantee. The said applica#on for invoking the bank guarantee was moved on 19.02.2024. In the said execu#on, HDFC bank was impleaded as respondent No.7. It filed the objec#ons (copy Annexure P.9) sta#ng therein that judgment debtor vide his leDer dated 08.12.2023 had wriDen to the said Bank not to encash the bank guarantee in favour of the decree holder. It was further pleaded by the Bank that it had no objec#on to encash the bank guarantee as issued in favour of decree holder- Harpreet Industries. The judgment debtor, i.e. pe##oner filed reply to the applica#on for invoking the bank guarantee opposing the same on the ground that validity period of the bank guarantee was 24.05.2023 whereas the applica#on to invoke the bank guarantee was moved on 19.02.2024. Rejec#ng the conten#on of the judgment debtor, the Execu#ng Court vide impugned order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P.12) allowed the applica#on of the decree holder, and dismissed the objec#ons of the judgment debtor and directed the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank to release the amount of the bank guarantee.
3. The sole conten#on raised by learned counsel for the pe##oner/ judgment debtor before this Court is that validity period of the bank guarantee was upto 24.05.2023 and, therefore, the Court could not order to invoke the said bank guarantee in favour of the decree holder. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in case Pree. Industries and others Vs. The Chairman, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd and others, - MANU/HP/1181/2019.
4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the pe##oners and perusing the en#re paper book, this Court does not find merit in the present pe##on.
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 22:13:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097637 CR No.4221 of 2024 -3-
5. It is conceded case of the pe##oner that judgment and decree for the recovery as passed by the trial Court has been upheld by the First Appellate Court and no stay has been granted by this Court in RSA filed by him (pe##oner). It is also not in dispute that on the direc#on of the First Appellate Court, the pe##oner had furnished the bank guarantee, the validity period of which was upto 24.05.2023. However, perusal of the details of the bank guarantee would reveal that though the expiry date of bank guarantee is 24.05.2023 but the claim expiry date is 24.05.2024. Meaning thereby, the beneficiary of the bank guarantee, which in the present case is decree holder/ Harpreet Industries could have filed the claim upto 24.05.2024 so as to invoke the bank guarantee. In this case, the decree holder/ beneficiary filed the claim before the claim expiry date.
6. The facts of Pree. Industries' case (supra), relied by learned counsel for the pe##oner are en#rely different inasmuch in that case, certain tenders were invited and along with tender form, demand draF and bank guarantee valid upto 09.04.2020 were to be furnished. The pe##oner in that case had furnished bank guarantee valid upto 05.04.2020, though the claim validity period was upto 05.04.2021. It was in this context that it was held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that expiry date of bank guarantee is different from claim validity period as both have different connota#ons in commercial law. The conten#on of the pe##oner in that case that grant of a claim period valid upto 05.04.2021 would tantamount to validity of the bank guarantee was rejected.
7. The facts of the present case are en#rely different inasmuch as it was in a suit for recovery that the First Appellate Court had asked the judgment debtor to furnish the bank guarantee. The language of the order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure P.2) passed by learned Addi#onal District Judge, Ludhiana clearly indicates that opera#on of the impugned judgment of the trial Court was stayed so as to secure the rights of the decree holder by puGng condi#ons on the judgment debtor to assure and 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 22:13:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097637 CR No.4221 of 2024 -4- guarantee the payment that may be there as a final outcome of the appeal and it is in this factual matrix that bank gurantee of `45 lakhs was directed to be furnished. As such, the pe##oner cannot draw any advantage from the case of Pree. Industries' case (supra).
9. On account of en#re discussion as above, it is held that there is no merit in the present pe##on and the same is hereby dismissed.
July 31, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2024 22:13:40 :::