Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18095-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1499 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Sumac International Ltd.Thru.Managing Director Awadhesh Kumar Verma Respondent :- Bank Of India Thru. Zonal Manager Zonal Office Star House And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpila Bisht Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Chandra Srivastava,Sudhanshu Chauhan Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party- Bank. 2. Prima facie, after hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that some bank guarantee was extended by the petitioner in favour of a third person i.e. opposite party no. 6 which was invoked by the said opposite party sometimes in 1993 which gave rise to a liability of the petitioner in favour of the opposite party no. 1 - Bank which had issued the bank guarantee at the behest of the petitioner. Thereafter, an OTS settlement was arrived on 14.03.2007 between the petitioner and the opposite party- Bank and its officials. The amount payable under the OTS had been paid by the petitioner on different dates. Apart from it, under the OTS petitioner had submitted an indemnity bond that if any of the bank guarantees extended by the opposite party no. 1 at the behest of the petitioner is invoked by a third party, then, the petitioner would indemnify the Bank in respect thereof, but, the case of the petitioner is that after the OTS settlement no bank guarantee was invoked by any third party. 3. Shri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Bank asserted to the contrary, however, on being probed further he accepted the fact that bank guarantee was invoked in the year 1993, whereas, the OTS settlement and indemnity bond is subsequent to it, therefore, prima facie, the stand of the opposite party- Bank does not appear to be tenable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no qualms that if in future any bank grantee extended by the opposite party no. 1 at the behest of the petitioner to third parties is invoked, the petitioner would indemnify the Bank in respect of the amount involved and it is ready to give an undertaking in writing to the opposite party no. 1 and 2 in this regard within a period of 15 days. 5. Shri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Bank says that if such undertaking is given the Bank would issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. 6. The NOC is necessary so that the petitioner may engage in other businesses and take loans/ financial assistance from other institutions. 7. We dispose of this writ petition in the aforesaid terms, meaning thereby, the petitioner shall given an undertaking as aforesaid within 15 days whereupon the opposite party no. 1 or 2, as the case may be, shall issue the No Objection Certificate to the petitioner if there is no legal impediment within the next 15 days. 8. This order shall not have any adverse bearing on the rights, if any, of any third party vis-a-vis the petitioner or opposite party- Bank nor on any proceedings which may be pending at their behest before any Court, forum or Authority. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 1.4.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench