1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.518 OF 2007. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., (formerly known as Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd.), a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 12/1, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Calcutta and its local Office at Directorate of Food and Drugs Bldg., Panaji- Goa, represented by its Sr. Executive, Mr. A.U.Suratkal. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Goa State Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd., having its registered office at 7th floor, EDC House, Dr. Atmaram Borkar Road, Panaji- Goa. 2. The Federal Bank, through its Senior Manager, Panaji Branch, Altinho, Panaji-Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. S. Sonak with Mr. D. Pangam with Mr. N. Vaze, Advocates for the respondent No.1. Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the respondent No.2. 2 Coram :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. D ate : - 25 th July, 2008. ORAL ORDER : 1. On 26.10.2007, this Court had directed issuance of notice and further observed that the petition would be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Hence, Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. In the present case all that has been pointed out to distinguish this case from the earlier matter i.e. W.P. No.517/2007 is that the suit bank guarantee is issued by Federal bank and it refers to the claim by way of loss or damage caused to or would be caused or suffered by employer. However, it is pointed out by the Corporation that even this suit bank guarantee is unconditional and the amounts are due and payable merely on demand from the Corporation and Corporation's satisfaction is enough for its invocation. There is no further proof or material that is required to be forwarded to the banker. This was a case of the mobilization advance and the contention before me is that there is non-payment of the said advance. In such circumstances, when the dispute in this behalf is pending, the plea 3 raised is that the letter of invocation could not have been acted upon. 4. The invocation letter, copy of which is at page 62 may be referring to any mobilization advancement not being settled entirely by the Corporation but that by itself is of no consequence in the teeth of the clear language of the suit bank guarantee and bank being informed that the Corporation has decided to invoke the bank guarantee on its satisfaction as stipulated in terms of the suit bank guarantee, then, absence of some words here and there is of no consequence. The suit bank guarantee is unconditional and that appears to be the undisputed position. In such circumstances, compliance with the terms of the suit bank guarantee and the invocation cannot be faulted. 5. These are the only distinguishing factors which have been pointed out to me. This by itself does not enable me to take a different view in this case . Thus, for the reasons set out in the order passed in Writ Petition No.517/2007, this writ petition also fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 6. At this stage, Mr. Nadkarni appearing for the petitioner prays that the ad interim relief granted by this Court, be continued for some time so as to enable the petitioner to challenge this order further. This request is 4 opposed by Mr. Nikhil Vaze, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation. The ad interim order has been granted on 26.10.2007 and has been continuing till date. Interest of justice would be served if the said order is continued for a period of 6 weeks from today. Needless to state that the extension of the ad interim order is conditional upon the petitioner's renewing the suit bank guarantee and if that is not done, the benefit of such extension shall not be available to them. 7. Registry to give a copy of my order dated 25.7.2008 in W.P. No.517/2007 to Mr. E. Afonso,learned Counsel for the Federal Bank. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SMA