2020 (2) TMI 1680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n  MAT 916 of 2019 and the Petitioner in COT 55 of 2019 : Mr. Tilok Bose, Ms. Vineeta Meharia,  Ms. Urmila Chakraborty,  Ms. Subika Paul. For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Priyankar Ganguly. ORDER Since the appellants cannot proceed with the matter, MAT 916 of 2019 is dismissed for default. There is a cross-objection by the first respondent in the appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellants herein on behalf of Simplex for about Rs.6.97 crore. According to IOCL, despite Simplex being given 50% of the mobilisation advance, no work was forthcoming. After IOCL issued several notices to Simplex which went unheeded, IOCL invoked the bank guarantee. It is submitted on behalf of IOCL that notwithstanding the bank having no right to stall immediate payment upon the invocation of an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ailable by Simplex to the bank. IOCL says that it was in such circumstances that IOCL was constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court for a direction on the Bank of Baroda to release the payment under the unconditional bank guarantee. IOCL maintains that in such circumstances and considering the conduct of the Bank of Baroda, an appropriate order ought to have been passed to revoke .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X