( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.316 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.316 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.316 OF 2008 Sterlite Technologies Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s SAG Gmbh & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.D.Madon, Sr.Counsel with Mr.M.R.Baya for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Birendra Saraf with Mr.S.R.Shrivastava i/by M/s.Puranik & Co.for Respondent No.2. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 2ND MARCH, 2009. DATE : 2ND MARCH, 2009. DATE : 2ND MARCH, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Affidavits of Respondent No.2 dated 28.2.2009 and 2.3.2009 taken on record. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. 3. By my order dated 28.1.2009 the Respondent No.1 was restrained from invoking the Bank Guarantee furnished by the Petitioners to the Respondent No.1 through the Respondent No.2 Bank. Parties now submit that after the said restraint order was passed, the Respondent No.1 has invoked the Bank Guarantee issued by the corresponding Bank in Germany, which admittedly, was not covered by the order of this Court dated 28.1.2009. 4. Therefore, in my view, the Arbitration Petition filed by the Petitioners has become infructuous and the ( 2 ) Petitioners would be required to take appropriate proceedings against Respondent Nos.1 & 2. 5. Petition is therefore dismissed as infructuous. 6. Respondent No.2 through their Counsel makes a statement that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they would maintain status-quo as of today, i.e.they will not debit the account of the Petitioners for a period of two weeks from today. The said statement is accepted. 7. Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)