THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 9 8 4 of 2009 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 20-07-2009 passed in WP.No. 14462 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the main writ petition as not maintainable on account of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The main writ petition was filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to restrain Respondents 1 and 2 in taking steps to invoke the Bank Guarantees dated 27-11-2008 drawn in favour of second respondent through the third respondent-bank situate at Hyderabad, where the petitioner entered into the contract for creation of Bank guarantees for being utilized for doing the work under package No. MP-0017 vide agreement No. 10/PIUs/BGT/2005-2006 Balghat dated 08-12-2005 entrusted from enforcing and responding to the action of invocation of bank guarantees dated 08-7-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same shall be restrained from being enforced and the same be preserved as contemplated under section 9 (I) (d) and (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 till the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings as contemplated under clause 24 and 25 of the General Clauses of Contract governing both parties. 3. Sri N. Vidya Prasad, the learned counsel representing Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant would suffer irretrievable and substantial injury on account of the arbitrary invocation of the bank guarantees by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel, Sri N. Vidya Prasad, is unable to point out any egregious fraud either before the learned single Judge or before this Court which goes to the root of the bank guarantee furnished as would mark out this case as an exception to the general principle that unconditional irrecovable bank guarantees ought not be interdicted. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition and file it before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 6. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the writ petition and file it before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 7. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI _____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 29-07-2009. I s L