[2025:RJ-JP:37886] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12490/2025 M/s Origo Commodities India Private Limited, (A Company Incorporated And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956), Through Its Chief Executive Officer Brij Raj Singh, Having Corporate Office At Thinkplus, Plot No. 18 B, Sector-32, Gurugram-122022. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary Department of Agriculture and Marketing, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, (A Government Undertaking) through its Chairman and Managing Director having its Head Office at Bhawani Singh Road, Jaiur-302015, Rajasthan. 3. Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, (A Government Undertaking), Tender/bid Inviting Authority having its Head Office at Bhawani Singh Road, Jaiur-302015, Rajasthan. 4. Yes Bank, through its Authorized Representative, O-19-A, Ashok Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur-302001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Suhail Sehgal with Mr.Pranjul Chopra & Ms.Priyanshi Katta For Respondent(s) : Mr.Divanshu Gupta Mr.Tanishq Jhavery Ms.Simran Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- [2025:RJ-JP:37886] (2 of 5) [CW-12490/2025] “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature thereof: i. Issue a writ restraining Respondent No.2 from invoking the Bank Guarantee and the Respondent No.4 from encashing the Bank guarantee provided by the Petitioner and detailed in the petition. In the alternative ii. Issue a writ restraining Respondents for a period of three months from invoking/encashing the Bank Guarantee to allow the Petitioner to move the jurisdictional Court and seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law. iii. Grant interim stay on invocation of Bank Guarantee; iv. Pass any other order deemed fit, with costs.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement/ contract dated 25.06.2020 was executed between the parties and owing to some dispute between the parties, the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes. During pendency of the arbitral proceedings, an interim order dated 06.10.2024 was passed by the sole Arbitrator directing the respondent No.2 not to encash the bank guarantee till disposal of the arbitral proceedings. 3. Counsel submits that the matter was pending for adjudication before the Arbitrator and in the meantime, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for invoking bank guarantee because of violation of the terms and conditions of the contract/ agreement. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice was submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits that without considering the [2025:RJ-JP:37886] (3 of 5) [CW-12490/2025] reply submitted by the petitioner and without taking a note of the fact that the matter is sub judice before the Arbitrator and that an interim order has already been passed in favour of the petitioner granting status quo on the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner, even then the respondent No.2 has been bent upon to invoke the bank guarantee, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this instant writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the interim order passed by the Arbitrator was confined to the period, i.e., till disposal of the arbitral proceedings pending before the Arbitrator. Counsel submits that the arbitral award was passed by the Arbitrator on 03.06.2025 and the contact of the petitioner has been terminated on 01.04.2025. Counsel submits that the termination order dated 01.04.2025 has not been assailed by the petitioner before any competent forum of law rather the respondents have submitted objections against the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) before the Commercial Court. Counsel submits that the issue of invocation of bank guarantee can be adjudged by the competent Court not by this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. Vs Tarapore & Co and Anr. reported in [2025:RJ-JP:37886] (4 of 5) [CW-12490/2025] (1996) 5 SCC 34 and Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Limited & Anr. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 46. 6. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No.6413/2025. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the prayer made in this writ petition is for issuing directions to the respondents to not to invoke the bank guarantee, steps have already been taken by the respondents for invocation of the bank guarantee, pursuant to the termination order dated 01.04.2025. Hence, under the changed circumstances, no further cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with this petition. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, this writ petition has become infructuous after passing of the aforesaid order. Needless to observe, in case, the petitioner feels aggrieved by the termination order dated 01.04.2025, he can approach appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievance. [2025:RJ-JP:37886] (5 of 5) [CW-12490/2025] 11. The instant writ petition stands dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /48