Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) fraud of egregious nature; and (ii) irreparable harm or injustice to one party. None of the grounds are available to the Petitioner in the present facts and circumstances and neither has the Petitioner pleaded fraud of egregious nature nor shown any irretrievable harm that is likely to be caused if CPGs are invoked/encashed.

15. While it is true that Petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause and referred the matter to 'Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSE's Disputes' (AMRCD), but the same has no basis in law being pre-mature and in contravention of Clause 7 of the LoA, Clause 16 of SCC and Clause 6 of GCC, which provide the mechanism for Settlement of Disputes.

19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 the law on invocation/encashment of unconditional BGs is no more res integra and it is settled that injunction can be granted only in two exceptional cases: (a) in the event of egregious frauds, which vitiates the entire underline transactions and of which the Bank has notice; or (b) irretrievable injury/injustice, where the irretrievable injury must be of an exceptional circumstance of the kind where it is impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself if he succeeds in final adjudication of the disputes. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (supra), held as follows:-

"12. An injunction against the invocation of an absolute and an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be granted except in situations of egregious fraud or irretrievable injury to one of the parties concerned. This position also is no more res integra. In Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co. [Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110] , at para 14: (SCC pp. 117-18) "14. From the discussions made hereinabove relating to the principles for grant or refusal to grant of injunction to restrain enforcement of a bank guarantee or a letter of credit, we find that the following principles should be noted in the matter of injunction to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee or a letter of credit:

28. None of the two recognized exceptions to invocation of unconditional BGs exist in the present case. There are no pleadings of fraud, save and except, a vague averment that invocation is illegal and 'fraudulent'. Petitioner has neither pleaded nor shown any act of Respondent No.1 which can be put at the threshold of egregious fraud. The present case also cannot be said to be one of irretrievable injustice as even the special equity is predicated on the alleged financial crunch, a ground negated by the Courts in several judgments to interdict the invocation of unconditional and irrevocable BGs. In this context, I may refer to a few passages from the judgment of this Court in Kuber Enterprises v. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5049, which are as follows:-