IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14921 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHYLAJA, W/O.JEEVARAJ, PROPRIETORIX, M/.CHIPPY BAKERS, KAIPUZHA NORTH, KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIE CORPORATION LTD., S-67, GCDA,COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN.31 ,REP. BY ITS SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, 2. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CHENGANNUR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 14921 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is indebted to the 1st respondent for money due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. For due repayment of the same, the 2nd respondent-Bank had executed a bank guarantee in favour of the 1st respondent on behalf of the petitioner. For non- payment of the amount due, the 1st respondent has invoked bank guarantee which is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that the bank guarantee has been extended till March, 2009 and therefore there is no occasion for the respondents to invoke the bank guarantee now. She further submits that she is prepared to pay off the entire amounts due by December, 2008 and respondents 1 and 2 may be directed not to invoke the bank guarantee in the meanwhile. 2. This is stoutly opposed by counsel for the 1st respondent. According to him, the loan itself was only for a period of 90 days and now in addition to 90 days, one year has elapsed and therefore the petitioner cannot now claim any further indulgence in the matter. He also relies on a Supreme Court decision which would say that only on the ground of fraud, invocation of bank guarantee shall be stalled. In the above circumstances, counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to move the civil court for appropriate orders. This is also stoutly opposed by the counsel for the 1st respondent. According to him, when the Supreme Court holds that only on the ground fraud, a bank guarantee can be stalled, this Court cannot also grant the petitioner time to approach the civil court. 3. Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given a breathing time to approach the civil court for appropriate remedies and try to get interim orders thereon Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing respondents 1 and W.P.C. No. 14921/2008. -: 2 :- 2 to postpone invoking the bank guarantee for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court and obtain interim orders, if he can. Issue photo copy urgently. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.