1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 68 OF 2005. 1. The State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Alto­Porvorim, Goa. 2. Public Works Department, Governmetn of Goa, Through its Principal Chief Engineer, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. .... Appellants. Versus 1. M/s. N.V. Kharote Constructions, Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having Apts., S.No.3/2, Near Civil Defence Training Centre, Parvati, Pune­411 009, (formerly known as M/s. N.V. Kharote) through its Managing Director, Shri Ratnakar N. Kharote, r/o as given above. 2. (a) Mr. Ratnakar N. Kharote, (b) Mr. Sanjay N. Kharote, in their capacity as partners of M/s. N.V. Kharote, a registered Partnership Fir, having its office at 471, Budhwar Peth, Pune 411 002. .... Respondents. Shri S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri S.G. Aney, Senior Advocate with Shri Mandar Goswami and Shri J. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATE: 17 th MARCH, 2006. ORAL ORDER: Heard Shri Kantak, learned Advocate General for the Appellants and Shri Aney, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents. 2. By this appeal, the appellants who are defendants in Civil Suit No. 6/2005 take exception to the Order dated 21st July, 2005 passed by IInd Adhoc Addl. District Judge, at Panaji in C.M.A. No.35/2005 in Civil Suit No. 6/05. 3. The respondents herein filed the above suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of money. Along with the suit the respondents filed an application for injunction restraining the appellants from encashing Bank Guarantee dated 19th September, 2002 for an amount of Rs.11,10,500/­. The application was contested by the appellants and after hearing both sides, the trial Court passed the impugned order. 4. Shri Aney, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the respondents are prepared to keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the disposal of the suit, however subject to the final result of the suit. 3 5. A bare perusal of the impugned Order discloses that the trial Court has not analysed the material placed on record nor has it given any finding as to why it was granting the prayer against the appellants. Needless to mention that the Court dealing with an application for injunction has to analyse the material placed on record and also has to consider the judgments relied upon by the parties before giving any finding in the order. The trial Court has not exercised jurisdiction as required by law. The trial Court was expected to analyse the material placed on record and deal with the issues before passing the order. It is observed that by a cryptic order without giving any cogent reason the trial Court has granted relief in favour of the respondents without dealing with the issues in detail. In my opinion, on this count only the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 21st July, 2005 is quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the application for injunction afresh after hearing both sides in the light of the observations made above. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on merits of the matter and the trial Court is expected to decide the application on its own merit. The parties to appear before the trial Court for further directions on 24th March, 2006 at 10.00 a.m. Having regard to the nature of 4 the matter, the trial Court shall decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. 7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. sl.