Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131735-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25899 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jain Block Glassware Export Private Limited And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari,Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Purnendu Kumar Singh Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Mr. S.P. Singh, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients seek interference with demand of respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the letters of credit, as made by impugned communication dated 24th July, 2025. He submits, demand simpliciter cannot be recovered under a letter of credit. 2. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of respondents. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Work, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 450. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below with emphasis laid on relied upon sentence. "29. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not consider it necessary to refer to various judicial pronouncements of this Court in which the principles which have to be followed while examining an application for grant of interim relief have been clearly laid down. The observation of the High Court that reference to judicial decisions will not be of much importance was clearly a method adopted by it in avoiding to follow and apply the law as laid down by this Court. Yet another serious error which was committed by the High Court, in the present case, was not to examine the terms of the bank guarantee and consider the letters of invocation which had been written by the appellant. If the High Court had taken the trouble of examining the documents on record, which had been referred to by the trial court, in its order refusing to grant injunction, the court would not have granted the interim injunction. We also do not find any justification for the High Court in invoking the alleged principle of unjust enrichment to the facts of the present case and then deny the appellant the right to encash the bank guarantee. If the High Court had taken the trouble to see the law on the point it would have been clear that in encashment of bank guarantee the applicability of the principle of undue enrichment has no application." (emphasis supplied) 3. By impugned communication dated 24th July, 2025 respondent nos.2 and 3 have alleged that petitioners failed to pay a sum of Rs.14,14,403.41 within the credit period as per provisions and conditions stipulated in the bank guarantee and gas sales agreement. Therefore, enchashment requested of the sum from the letters of credit issued by the bank, at instance of petitioner to beneficiary 'GAIL Gas Limited'. Payment under letters of credit are ordinarily obtained upon shipping documents submitted in terms. As such, the bank will necessarily act on the letters of credit as per its terms. No interference by Court is warranted. 4. On above observation the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Salim (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Manjive Shukla, J.) Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad