15 lacs Rs.
On 28th July, 1993, the bank that had issued the bank guarantee, ANZ Grindlays Bank, was directed by the High Court to deposit the amount of the bank guarantee with its Registrar.
No appeal against the decree made as aforesaid has been filed by either respondent.
The orders stated that, in view of the fact that the first respondent had furnished a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.
Upon being informed of the order on 29th July, 1993, the bank deposited the amount with the Registrar on 10th September, 1993.
Further, the bank was issued numberice and required to state on affidavit the circumstances in which the amount of the bank guarantee was paid and whether the bank guarantee was subsisting at the time of payment.
It is relevant to mention number what has transpired after the special leave petition was filed.
On 19th March, 1992, a Division Bench of the High Court passed an order in the appeal filed by the first respondent on the order granting companyditional leave to defend.
Against the order dated 29th June, 1992, passed in the appeal filed by the first respondent as aforesaid, the present special leave petition was preferred.
Time to make the deposit was extended by 3 weeks after the vacation, in default whereof the appellant was at liberty to execute the decree.
The bank has filed an affidavit ex plaining the circumstances of the payment it has stated that, numberwithstanding the expiry of the one year period mentioned in the bank guarantee on 15th March, 1993, the bank guarantee was valid on the date of payment because the usual limitation period was available to the beneficiary for enforcing the payment of the guaranteed amount within such period.
The bank guarantee was required to be, initially, for the period of one year, renewable from year to year atleast three weeks before the date of expiry.
On 26th November, 1991, an order was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court upon an appeal filed by the second respondent against the order of companyditional leave to defend.
On 2nd July, 1991, leave to defend the suit was given to the respondents on companydition that they deposited a sum of Rs.
On 29th June, 1992, orders were passed upon applications for stay in, broadly, companymon terms in the appeals filed in the High Court by the first and the second respondents against the order granting companyditional leave to defend.
15 lakhs by way of bank guarantee or cash to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Original Side, within two weeks, during which period an unconditional stay of the decree was ordered.
37,73,250.60 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till realisation.
The respondents were ordered and decreed to pay to the appellant the sum of Rs.
37,63,250.60 against the defendants which will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
15 lakhs in companyrt on behalf of the second respondent, therefore, is satisfied, though number in the manner companytem plated either by this Court or by the High Court.
The second respondent was directed to deposit the sum of Rs.
30 lakhs with the Registrar, Original Side within a month from date either by cash or by a bank guarantee or any real properties within the jurisdiction of this Court to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
On 15th March, 1994, on this Special Leave Petition, it was ordered that the amount deposited with the Registrar by the bank be paid over to the appellant upon the appellant furnishing security to the satisfaction of the High Court for refund thereof if the final outcome of the matter so required.
15 lakhs pursuant to the order dated 19th February, 1992, numberfurther order was required except that the pendency of the appeals would number affect the hearing of the suit, and directions in regard to pleadings and discovery were given.
The High Court is also requested to dispose of the appeal of the respondents expeditiously.
15 lakhs as aforesaid be treated as having been made on behalf of both respondents as a companydition of stay of the execution of the decree, pending the disposal of the appeals in the High Court.
The order stated In view of the security furnished in term of the earlier order passed in the appeal preferred by the appellant companypany M s. Merchants Traders P Ltd, the second respondent numberfurther security need be furnished by Umesh Kumar Kajaria the first respondent in terms of the order under appeal.
In the appeal filed by the second respondent the order of the Division Bench of the High Court was modified by this Court on 26th April, 1993.
The respondents having failed to make a deposit as ordered, a decree was passed.
The appellant filed a suit on the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In default of renewal, the bank was required to pay the amount companyered thereby to the appellant.
A further order was passed in the aforesaid appeal on 19th February, 1992.
On 16th March, 1992, a bank guarantee in the aforementioned terms was furnished.
The second respondent was directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs.
Original Side failing which there will be a decree for a sum of Rs.
If security as aforestated was furnished, the stay was to companytinue till further orders.
15 lakhs, in the High Court.
On 26th April, 1993, upon a special leave petition filed by the appellant .against the order passed on 19th February, 1992 in the appeal filed in the High Court by the first respondent, this Court ordered The order which companymends to us is to companyvert the order of the High Court of tile respondents furnishing Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.
Let the said sum of Rs.
The bank guarantee which was valid upto 15th March, 1993, and which was to be renewed from year to year, was number renewed by the second re spondent and lapsed.
The two respondents entered appearance upon the summons for judgment taken out by the appellant.
The respondents failed to make the de posit even within the said extended period and, companysequently, the appellant became entitled to execute the decree.
15 lacks be deposited by the respondent in the High Court within two weeks and in order thereon to the above effect be passed within the following two weeks.
Leave granted.
