1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.63 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.398 OF 1994 M/s. Hindustan Photo Film Manufacturing Co. Ltd., ...Plaintiffs Vs. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. ...Defendants and M/s. Reman Cine Corporation ...Applicants Mr.A.M. Sarogi with Mr. D. Salvi for Applicant Mr. K. Modi i/b. M/s. Little & Co. for Defendants Mr.A. Daver i/b. Cr.Bayley & Co. for Plaintiffs CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1.This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicant who has agreed to give a bank guarantee to the Plaintiffs for the price of the goods sold and delivered to the Applicants by the Plaintiffs. The Bank guarantee, Exhibit-A to the plaint, has been initially given on 4th March 1989. It is for a period of one year from 4th March 1989 to 3rd March 1990. The guarantee is a continuing guarantee. It is in respect of all transactions relating to supply of the goods by the Company 2 to the buyer (the Applicants) during that period. The guarantee would remain outstanding in respect of transactions concluded during that period. 2. The bank guarantee has been extended from time to time for a period of one year each. There have been 3 such extensions. The last of the extension is up to 3rd March 1993. 3. The Defendants/Bank, therefore, have to make payment in respect of all the bills issued by the Plaintiffs upon the Applicants and which the Plaintiffs called upon the Defendants to honour as guaranteed. 4. It is the case of the Applicants that there a “genuine dispute” with regard to the amount payable to the Plaintiffs and hence, the Applicant desires to be joined in the suit to show the Court the genuine dispute pursuant to which the guarantee given by the Bank must be dishonoured. 5. The Applicant has no right in law to show any genuine dispute for causing the guarantee, once given, to be dishonoured. This is a settled position in law that it only on account of fraud that the guarantee could not be invoked or 3 can be dishonoured. 6. The Applicant would be required to sue separately in respect of whatever “genuine dispute” that the Applicant has. The remedy of the Applicant is not in dishonouring the guarantee. The guarantee has to be honoured in respect of whatever outstanding amount under the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Applicant are presented to the Bank. 7. Consequently the Chamber Summons is entirely misconceived and is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)