1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.353 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.267 OF 2008 Logicon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Gulf Glass Manufacturing Company and another ..Defendants. .... Ms. Armin Wandrewala with Mr. Hiren Mehta i/b Akshay Vani for the Plaintiff. Mr. Rahul Chitnis with Ms.S. Surve i/b Little & Co. for Defendant No.1. Ms. Usha Srivastava with Ms. Sonali Shinde i/b Consulta Juris for Defendant No.2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13th March, 2008. P.C. : 1. On 18th January, 2008 an ad interim order was passed by this Court permitting the Second Defendant viz. Indian Overseas Bank to release a sum of Euros 10,000 from and out of the proceeds of the bank guarantee which was invoked by the First Defendant. The bank guarantee which the First Defendant had invoked was in the amount of Euros 48,000. The First Defendant is based in Kuwait and was not before the Court when the order was passed on 18th January, 2008. Subsequently, the 2 First Defendant appeared before the Court on 28th January, 008 and the ad interim order was continued until 18th February, 2008. On 18th February, 2008 the order was extended until 11th March, 2008. The aforesaid extensions were necessitated since time was taken to complete the pleadings. 2. Counsel appearing for Indian Overseas Bank, the Second Defendant, has placed on the record a communication received from the Commercial Bank of Kuwait on 3rd March, 2008 recording that the Bank in Kuwait was committed to honour its undertaking under the guarantee which that bank had issued to its beneficiary. The Commercial Bank of Kuwait had stated that it has honoured the claim of the beneficiary on 21st February, 2008 by remitting an amount of Euros 48,000. The Second Defendant has accordingly been called upon to honour its obligation under its counter guarantee. Counsel appearing for the First Defendant has stated that the proceeds of the guarantee have been realized by the First Defendant. 3. In view of this factual position, Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff does not dispute that no reliefs can be granted in the 3 Motion which has now been rendered infructuous. On the request of Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff it is clarified that this will not preclude the Plaintiff from pursuing such remedies as are available in law since it has been stated before the Court that the Plaintiff will move an amendment to the Plaint. The Motion is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. *****