1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.32 OF 2008 M/s.Reman Cine Corporation ..Petitioner vs. M/s.Hindustan Photo Film Manufacturing Co. Ltd & anr ..Respondents Mr. Yatin R. Shah for Petitioner Mr. A.S. Daver i/b M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co., for Respondent No.1 Mr. Kirit Mody alongwith Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b Little & Co., for Respondent NO.2 CORAM: Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 31ST March, 2009 P.C.: 1. Review Petition shall be numbered as the delay has been condoned. My order dated 21.04.2008 is required to be reviewed. In the said order bank guarantee which was given by the Applicant in favour of the Petitioner was required to be honoured. The Applicant sought to be made party Defendant to the suit and obtain an order restraining the bank from honouring the bank guarantee. The Applicant had contended that there is a genuine dispute. It is settled position in law that no order against the honouring of bank 2 guarantees can be passed except in case of fraud or irreparable injury. The Applicant gave a guarantee of their bankers to the Plaintiff to make payments under a series of transactions of sale of goods of the Plaintiff which the Applicants were allowed to purchase on credit upon such guarantee. The guarantee was given to the predecessor- in- title of the Defendant Bank (the said bank). The Defendant bank has taken over their obligations and liabilities. The Applicant called upon the said Bank to make payment under the guarantee upon defaults of the Applicants. The said Bank failed to honour the guarantee. Hence the Plaintiff sued the said Bank. 2. The Applicant sought to be made party Defendants. The Applicant is neither a proper nor necessary party to the suit. The guarantee has to be honoured by the said bank and consequently by the Defendant Bank. 3. Surprisingly Mr. Modi instructed by Little & Co. has sought to contend that the Defendant Bank joins in the Application of the Applicant for review of the order for not honouring the bank guarantee on the premise that there is another litigation with regard to the same transaction between the Petitioner and the Applicants for which the bank guarantee is given. Mr. Modi contends that the suit must be disposed 3 off first. This is astounding contention on the part of the Bank which is required to honour the bank guarantee given by the parties which is essentially required for expediency in commerce and trade. The order dated 21.04.2008 does not call for review. Review Petition is dismissed. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)