Laxmi Pat Surana Vs. Uco Bank and anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1164504
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnSep-17-2014
JudgeDEBANGSU BASAK
AppellantLaxmi Pat Surana
RespondentUco Bank and anr
Excerpt:
order sheet wp no.266 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side laxmi pat surana versus uco bank and anr before: the hon'ble justice debangsu basak date : 17th september, 2014. appearance: mr.g.s.gupta, adv.for the petitioner. mr.soumen das, adv.for the respondents. the court : - the petitioner seeks release of title deeds upon furnishing cash security to the respondent no.1 for the value of the bank guarantee. the petitioner caused the respondent no.1 to issue a bank guarantee for a value of rs.50 lakhs in favour of the railway authorities. as security for such bank guarantee the petitioner caused surana metals limited to deposit title deeds of premises no.79, padmapukur road, kolkata-700 029 with the respondent no.1. the petitioner has also put in the margin money for such bank guarantee for the sum of rs.20,38,126/-. such margin money was kept in a fixed deposit with the respondent no.1. the petitioner seeks to substitute such title deeds with cash securities. the petitioner seeks that the title deeds in respect of the aforesaid property be released to surana metals limited upon the petitioner putting in the balance of the sum of rs.50 lakhs for which the bank guarantee was issued after adjusting the value of the margin money of rs.20,38,126/- together with accrued interest thereon. the respondents do not oppose the prayer of the petitioner. the respondents, however, claim that the railway authorities are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that, the railway authorities had moved a writ petition being wp no.741 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by an order dated september 2, 2013. the respondents pointed out that, there are subsisting orders of injunction restraining invocation of the bank guarantee. it is also submitted on behalf of the respondents relying upon the clause of the bank guarantee that the respondents will not be liable to pay any amount in excess of rs.50 lakhs being the guaranteed amount that may be demanded by the railway authorities. i have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record. the petitioner has caused surana metals limited put in security by way of deposit of title deeds in respect of premises no.79 padmapukur road, kolkata 700 029. the respondent no.1 had issued a bank guarantee for a sum of rs.50 lakhs in favour of the railway authorities. the petitioner has filed a suit and has obtained an interim order of injunction against the railway authorities restraining the railway authorities from invoking the bank guarantee issued by the respondent no.1. the railway authorities had approached this hon’ble court under article 226 of the constitution of india by way of wp no.741 of 2011. such writ petition was disposed of by recording that the railway authorities are free to approach the appropriate civil forum to have the orders restraining the payment under the bank guarantee vacated. it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the injunction order is still subsisting. the petitioner seeks to replace the title deeds with cash securities. the petitioner submits that the value of the bank guarantee is rs.50 lakhs. the liability of the respondent no.1 in respect of such bank guarantee is limited to rs.50 lakhs. the respondent no.1, therefore, under the bank guarantee is liable to pay the maximum sum of rs.50 lakhs, on demand, by the railway authorities. out of the sum of rs.50 lakhs the petitioner has already put in a fixed deposit of rs.20,38,126/-. the petitioner submits that such fixed deposit is earning interest. the fixed deposit is with the respondent no.1. the contention of the respondents that the railway authorities are to be made parties to the writ petition prior to any order is made on this petition is without any basis. such point was urged and was negated by the order dated december 2, 2013. the security of the respondent no.1 in respect of the bank guarantee for rs.50 lakhs will not be prejudiced in the event the petitioner is directed to put in cash security in the nature of fixed deposit for the balance of the sum of rs.50 lakhs after adjusting the sum of rs.20,38,126/- together with accrued interest thereon with the respondent no.1. the respondent no.1 will be entitled to hold the fixed deposit of rs.20,38,126/- and the new fixed deposit along with interest accruing thereon during the period when the bank guarantee is alive. upon the petitioner depositing the sum as directed herein in a fixed deposit to be opened by the writ petitioner and the fixed deposit receipt in respect thereof kept with the branch manager of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 will make over the title deeds of premises no.79 padmapukur road, kolkata 700 029 to surana metals limited within seven days from the date of the fixed deposit being created. with the aforesaid direction, w.p.226 of 2013 is disposed of. no order as to costs. (debangsu basak, j.) pa
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET WP No.266 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LAXMI PAT SURANA Versus UCO BANK AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 17th September, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.G.S.Gupta, Adv.For the petitioner.

Mr.Soumen Das, Adv.For the respondents.

The Court : - The petitioner seeks release of title deeds upon furnishing cash security to the respondent no.1 for the value of the Bank Guarantee.

The petitioner caused the respondent no.1 to issue a Bank Guarantee for a value of Rs.50 lakhs in favour of the railway authorities.

As security for such Bank Guarantee the petitioner caused Surana Metals Limited to deposit title deeds of premises no.79, Padmapukur Road, Kolkata-700 029 with the respondent no.1.

The petitioner has also put in the margin money for such Bank Guarantee for the sum of Rs.20,38,126/-.

Such margin money was kept in a fixed deposit with the respondent no.1.

The petitioner seeks to substitute such title deeds with cash securities.

The petitioner seeks that the title deeds in respect of the aforesaid property be released to Surana Metals Limited upon the petitioner putting in the balance of the sum of Rs.50 lakhs for which the Bank Guarantee was issued after adjusting the value of the margin money of Rs.20,38,126/- together with accrued interest thereon.

The respondents do not oppose the prayer of the petitioner.

The respondents, however, claim that the railway authorities are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that, the railway authorities had moved a writ petition being WP No.741 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by an order dated September 2, 2013.

The respondents pointed out that, there are subsisting orders of injunction restraining invocation of the bank guarantee.

It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents relying upon the clause of the bank guarantee that the respondents will not be liable to pay any amount in excess of Rs.50 lakhs being the guaranteed amount that may be demanded by the railway authorities.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record.

The petitioner has caused Surana Metals Limited put in security by way of deposit of title deeds in respect of premises No.79 Padmapukur Road, Kolkata 700 029.

The respondent no.1 had issued a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs in favour of the railway authorities.

The petitioner has filed a suit and has obtained an interim order of injunction against the railway authorities restraining the railway authorities from invoking the bank guarantee issued by the respondent no.1.

The railway authorities had approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of WP No.741 of 2011.

Such writ petition was disposed of by recording that the railway authorities are free to approach the appropriate civil forum to have the orders restraining the payment under the bank guarantee vacated.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the injunction order is still subsisting.

The petitioner seeks to replace the title deeds with cash securities.

The petitioner submits that the value of the bank guarantee is Rs.50 lakhs.

The liability of the respondent no.1 in respect of such bank guarantee is limited to Rs.50 lakhs.

The respondent no.1, therefore, under the bank guarantee is liable to pay the maximum sum of Rs.50 lakhs, on demand, by the railway authorities.

Out of the sum of Rs.50 lakhs the petitioner has already put in a fixed deposit of Rs.20,38,126/-.

The petitioner submits that such fixed deposit is earning interest.

The fixed deposit is with the respondent no.1.

The contention of the respondents that the railway authorities are to be made parties to the writ petition prior to any order is made on this petition is without any basis.

Such point was urged and was negated by the order dated December 2, 2013.

The security of the respondent no.1 in respect of the bank guarantee for Rs.50 lakhs will not be prejudiced in the event the petitioner is directed to put in cash security in the nature of fixed deposit for the balance of the sum of Rs.50 lakhs after adjusting the sum of Rs.20,38,126/- together with accrued interest thereon with the respondent no.1.

The respondent no.1 will be entitled to hold the fixed deposit of Rs.20,38,126/- and the new fixed deposit along with interest accruing thereon during the period when the Bank Guarantee is alive.

Upon the petitioner depositing the sum as directed herein in a fixed deposit to be opened by the writ petitioner and the fixed deposit receipt in respect thereof kept with the Branch Manager of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 will make over the title deeds of premises No.79 Padmapukur Road, Kolkata 700 029 to Surana Metals Limited within seven days from the date of the fixed deposit being created.

With the aforesaid direction, W.P.226 of 2013 is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) pa