cr no.3298 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3298 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 04.12.2009 **** Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1 ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by one of the defendants against the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, whereby, the petitioner’s application to adjourn the Civil Suit sine die to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave (Civil) No.18450 of 2006 in which leave has already been granted, has been dismissed. (2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. (3). It appears that against the alleged non-performance of its part of contract by the petitioner, the respondent-Sugar Mill encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner cr no.3298 of 2009.doc - 2 - through the Standard Chartered Bank. Thereafter, the respondents-Sugar Mill has filed a Civil Suit for recovery against the Standard Chartered Bank and the petitioner- Company for recovery of Rs.21,90,430/- towards the interest on the delayed payment of the Bank guarantee. (4). On the other hand, the petitioner-Company had earlier sought a reference to the Arbitrator, inter alia, alleging that there exists an arbitral dispute between the parties. Its petition under Section 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed by the Civil Court, Kurukshetra which was further upheld by this Court against which the petitioner has preferred the above-stated SLP in which leave to appeal has already been granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is still pending consideration. (5). In my considered view, there is likelihood of some bearing of the final outcome of the Civil Appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the claim of the respondent-Sugar Mill regarding encashment of the bank guarantee. At the same time, it would serve none’s purpose to adjourn the suit proceedings sine die at this stage when the respondent-Sugar Mill is still leading its evidence. (6). Consequently and without expressing any views on the merits and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Civil Court, Kurukshetra, to continue with the suit proceedings, however, the final judgement shall not be pronounced. The respondent- Sugar Mill shall be at liberty to seek modification of this order and for issuance of appropriate directions, keeping the future cr no.3298 of 2009.doc - 3 - events in view. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Court on the date already fixed. (7). Disposed of. (8). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.12.2009 vishal shonkar