GAHC010260952017

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C) 2499/2017

1:SRI PARAN JYOTI SAIKIA S/O- SRI DHARMA SAIKIA, R/O- HOUSE NO. 7, LUTUMA, P.O-BINOVANAGAR, P.S- FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI-781018, DIST-KAMRUPM, ASSAM

VERSUS

1:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. and 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., BIJULEE BHAWANANNEX BUILDING, PALTAN BAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP, PIN- 781001

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL BIJULEE BHAWANANNEX BUILDING PALTAN BAZAR DIST- KAMRUP PIN- 781001

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER APDCL BIJULEE BHAWANANNEX BUILDING PALTAN BAZAR DIST- KAMRUP PIN- 781001

4:THE ALLAHABAD BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE G S ROAD OPP BORA SERVICE STATION ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781007

5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE ALLAHABAD BANK GS ROAD OPP BORA SERVICE STATION ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN- 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K KALITA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.N J DUTTA

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

ORDER

Date : 27-09-2018

Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent APDCL.

Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel has raised a contention that the petitioner had committed a fraud on the Court to the extent that upon obtaining the interim order, they had not extended the validity of the bank guarantee and as a consequence had put the respondent APDCL in a situation where they are denied the benefit of any security including the recovery of the amount due from the petitioner.

Perused the interim order dated 28.04.2017, which is as follows:-

"…… Until the next date fixed, operation of the letter dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure-5) shall remain suspended, subject to the condition that within 01 (one) week from today, the petitioner would communicate to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 intimating that the validity of the Bank Guarantee in question has been extended beyond the next date fixed in this case."

The interim order is a conditional order suspending the letter dated 25.04.2017 subject to the condition that the petitioner extends the validity of the bank guarantee within a period of one week there from.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked to produce the document by which the bank

guarantee has been extended and inspite of giving adequate opportunity, Could not produce the document by which the bank guarantee was extended.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a communication dated 04.05.2017 from Paran Jyoti Saikia. On the other hand, it is projected that the said communication depicts an extension of the bank guarantee .

Perused the communication dated 04.05.2017 of Paran Jyoti Saikia, which is as follows:-

" In this connection we would like to submit that the said Bank guarantee is valid up to 06/06/2017 as per High Court order and we undertake to pay your demand under said Bank Gurantee till 06/0/2017."

The contention does not in any manner indicate that there was an extension of the bank guarantee from any given date to another date.

Accordingly, the Court is constrained to conclude that there was no such extension of the bank guarantee.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the interim order dated 28.04.2017 staying the operation of the letter dated 25.04.2017 does not operate any further. It is also taken note of that when the matter was taken up on 25.04.2018, Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner had made a submission that in compliance of the interim order dated 28.04.2017, the petitioner had already given an undertaking with respect to the validity of the bank guarantee to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The said statement can only be understood to mean that the petitioners had extended the bank guarantee in favour of the respondent. But as already concluded, no material could be produced by the petitioner extending the bank guarantee and therefore, prima facie, it appears that on 25.04.2018, a false statement was made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner shall show cause as to why an incorrect statement was made before the Court on 25.04.2018.

List this matter on 08.10.2018.

It is also provided that pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar on the respondent APDCL to proceed against the petitioner in any manner as provided under the law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant