Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38279-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6487 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S B And G.Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Chennai And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi,Puneet Chandra,Sanjay Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Shri Desh Deepak Chopra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shailesh Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pritish Kumar, Advocate assisted by Shri Divyanshu Bhatt and Shri Shashwat Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- "a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the communication issued by the Respondent No.3 addressed to the Respondent No.5 seeking invocation of the Bank Guarantees bearing No(s) 15463BG000025 and 15463BG000027 dated 11.12.2015, last renewed on 26.03.2025 till 30.04.2026 and the communication dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure 1) issued by the Respondent No.5 intimating the encashment request made by the Respondent No.3, and/or b. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem to be fit and more appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Shri Pritish Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 says that no valid ground is made out in law for interference by this Court and in this context he submits that there are only two grounds available one is of fraud and other is irreparable/irretrievable injury, none of which have been pleaded herein nor do they exist. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 782; U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority vs. Sahakar Global Limited in support of his contention. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand says that the dispute arising out of the main contract is coming up before the Regulatory Commission tomorrow, therefore, the bank guarantee should not be allowed to be encashed. He relies upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. vs. Coal Tar Refining Co. reported in (2007) SCC 110. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records in the light of the decisions cited by them, we find that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Himadri Chemicals Industries Limited (supra) has held as under:- "14. From the discussions made hereinabove relating to the principles for grant or refusal to grant of injunction to retrain 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: (i) While dealing with an application for injunction in the course of commercial dealing, and when unconditional bank guarantee or letter of credit is given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realise such a bank guarantee or a letter of credit in terms thereof irrespective of any pending disputes relating to the terms of the contract. (ii) The bank giving such guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer. (iii) The courts should be slow in granting an order of injunction to restrain the realisation of a bank guarantee or a letter of credit. (iv) Since a bank guarantee or a letter of credit is an independent and a separate contract and is absolute in nature, the existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an order of injunction to restrain enforcement of bank guarantees or letters of credit. (v) Fraud of an egregious nature which would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee or letter of credit and the beneficiary seeks to take advantage of the situation. (vi) Allowing encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee or a letter of credit would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly delineated the grounds on which interference can be made in case of encashment of bank guarantee. None of the grounds have been taken in the writ petition nor the arguments advanced are covered by the said grounds. We, therefore, find no reason to grant the relief prayed for. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to pursue the litigation before the Regulatory Commission or to take recourse to other remedies prescribed in law. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 7.7.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench