High Court of Punjab and Haryana Enforces Strict Adherence to Procedural Timelines in Bank Guarantee Encashment Case
In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana mandated the Commercial Court, Gurugram, to adhere strictly to the procedural timelines specified under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. The directive came during the appeal by OFB Tech Private Limited against an interim order that restrained it from invoking a bank guarantee issued by IndusInd Bank at the request of KCC Buildcon Private Limited. The High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance in cases involving interim injunctions.
Facts of the Case: The dispute arose from business transactions between OFB Tech Private Limited and KCC Buildcon Private Limited, where the latter procured raw materials for infrastructure projects based on purchase orders without a formal contract. In response to certain disputes, OFB Tech invoked a bank guarantee amounting to ₹1.5 crore and sought to encash another guarantee of ₹3.5 crore, prompting KCC Buildcon to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Commercial Court granted an ex parte interim injunction on April 15, 2024, preventing the encashment of the ₹3.5 crore guarantee, which led to the present appeal.
Court Observations and Views:
Interim Injunction Against Encashment of Bank Guarantee: The High Court reviewed the Commercial Court’s interim order and emphasized the necessity for expeditious handling of injunction applications as mandated by Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC. The rule stipulates that an injunction application must be decided within 30 days when an ex parte order is granted. The appellant argued that the Commercial Court’s order lacked substantial evidence of irretrievable harm or injustice to justify the injunction.
Commercial Court’s Authority and Obligations: During the proceedings, both parties concurred that the interim order could continue if the Commercial Court adhered to the 30-day decision timeline. The High Court directed the Commercial Court to prioritize the hearing and decision on the injunction application, highlighting that the procedural timeline should not be deferred by more than a week from the scheduled date of May 14, 2024.
Legal Reasoning: The High Court refrained from ruling on the merits of the case, focusing instead on procedural adherence. It reiterated the importance of Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, which aims to prevent undue delays in deciding injunction applications. The court stated, “The hearing and decision on the injunction application shall not be deferred for a period of more than one week from the date fixed.”
Quotes from the Judgment: Justice Vikram Aggarwal emphasized the importance of procedural compliance, noting, “The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC must be adhered to in letter and spirit to ensure timely resolution of injunction applications, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness.”
Conclusion: The High Court’s directive to the Commercial Court, Gurugram, reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to procedural rigor and timely justice. By mandating strict adherence to the prescribed timelines for deciding injunction applications, the judgment aims to mitigate delays that can significantly impact business operations and contractual obligations. This decision serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving interim injunctions, ensuring that procedural requirements are met without undue delays.
Date of Decision: May 9, 2024
OFB Tech Private Limited v. KCC Buildcon Private Limited and another
