abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Orders M/S Maverick Innovation Pvt. Ltd vs Bptp Pvt. Ltd on 22 January, 2024 $~59 * + FAO (COMM) 14/2024 & CM Appls.387879/2024 M/S MAVERICK INNOVATION PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Appearance not given. versus BPTP PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORDER % 22.01.2024 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 06.12.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the learned Commercial Court allowing OMP (COMM) No. 34/2023 captioned BPTP Private Limited v. M/s Maverick Innovation Private Limited. 2. The said application (OMP (COMM) No. 34/2023) was filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an Arbitral Award dated 15.10.2022 (hereafter 'the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal'). The impugned award was rendered in the context of the disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with the Service Provider Agreement (hereafter 'the Agreement') dated 06.01.2021. The appellant's claims were allowed and the Arbitral Tribunal entered an award for an amount of FAO (COMM) 14/2024 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/01/2024 at 20:36:36 ₹6,36,654/ (including interest); costs of ₹77,925/; and pendente lite and future interest in accordance with provisions of Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereafter 'the MSMED Act'). 3. The appellant had raised certain invoices for the services rendered in terms of the Agreement and claimed that same were not paid in full. Accordingly, the appellant had raised a claim in respect of the unpaid amount. 4. It is the respondent's case that the parties had entered into negotiations which culminated in a settlement whereby the appellant agreed to accept 50% of the outstanding amount as full and final settlement of its dues. Admittedly, the appellant had signed a letter which recorded that the parties had settled the total billing of ₹11,80,000/ at 50 % of the said amount ₹5,90,000/. Admittedly, receipt of the said amount was acknowledged by the appellant. Thus, according to the respondent no further amount was payable to the appellant. 5. The Arbitral Tribunal did not accept the respondent's plea for the reasons that (a) the respondent had claimed the GST on the bills raised by
Telangana High Court M/S Krishnaveni Krishna District Milk ... vs The State Of Telangana on 23 January, 2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.17474 of 2023 ORDER: This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking following prayer: ".....to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the Award Dt.09.03.2023 passed of 2nd respondent in case No.490/IFC/Mdl/Mlg/2020 directing the Petitioner 1) to pay a sum of Rs.6,26,074/ towards principal amount, 2) interest with monthly rests at three times of the bank rate from the date of appointed day to till such the Respondent makes full and final payment the order in terms of Sec.16 of MSMED Act 2006 and 3)The Principal and Interest amounts are to be paid to claimant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this award, the said order was passed by the Council without following the procedure and giving proper opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the order impugned was passed, in utter disregard to the mandatory provision under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act') and the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 order dated 09.03.2023 is patently illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and unreasonable in patent violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of the rights conferred by the Constitution of India under Articles 14, 21 and 300A and consequently Quash the Award passed by the 2nd Respondent vide in proceedings case No. 490/IFC/MdlMlg/2020, dt.09.03.2023 and pass such other order..." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that in 2 NBK,J W.P. No.17474 of 2023 view of the order, dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7491 of 2023, this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners failed to avail the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. _______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 23.01.2024 ssp
Madras High Court Women'S Centre And Hospitals (P) Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 2 November, 2022 W.P. No. 6766 of 2020 DATED : 02.11.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 6766 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 8048 of 2020 Women's Centre and Hospitals (P) Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Officer, Mr. G.Ramesh Ram, 146B, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 600043. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. 2. M/s. Ibuilding Automation (P) Ltd., Plot No. 144, (Door No. 26) 4th Street, Raghava Reddy Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600083. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the First Respondent in MSEFC/CR/43/2017, dated 12.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. For Petitioner : Mrs. S.P.Arthi For Respondents : Mr. T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/12 W.P. No. 6766 of 2020 Mr. R.Anish Kumar (for R2) ORDER Heard Mrs. S.P.Arthi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T.Arun Kumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. R.Anish Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/43/2017 before the First Respondent under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 56,04,189/ from the Petitioner towards the value of goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 12.12.2019 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 56,04,189/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in MSMED Act from the invoices dated from 03.02.2011 to 07.03.2012 till the date of settlement, which assailed in this Writ Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 W.P. No. 6766 of 2020 3. In response to the contentions raised by Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it has to only resort to filing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short), to have it set aside as an arbitral award as held by this Court in the decision in M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mictro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Order dated 13.06.2022 in W.P. No. 8220 of 2017), Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that before commencement of arbitration, the prescribed procedure for conciliation had not been terminated in the manner provided in Section 76 of the A & C Act, which would vitiate the impugned order as having
Orissa High Court M/S National Aluminum Company vs M/S. Orissa Coal Chem. Pvt. Ltd on 1 August, 2023 ARBA Nos.8 and 13 of 2020 (From the judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Learned District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2017 arising out of award dated 29.09.2016 passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Cuttack, Odisha) (In ARBA No.8 of 2020 ) M/s National Aluminum Company .... Appellant Ltd., Bhubaneswar versus M/s. Orissa Coal Chem. Pvt. Ltd., .... Respondents Cuttack and Ors. Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant : Mrs. Pami Rath, Adv. versus For Respondents : Mr. G. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashok Sahu, Adv. (for Respondent No.1) Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA (for Respondent No.2) (In ARBA No.13 of 2020) M/s. Orissa Coal Chem. Pvt. Ltd., .... Appellant Cuttack versus M/s National Aluminum Company .... Respondents Ltd., Bhubaneswar & Ors. Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant : Mr. G. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashok Sahu, Adv. versus For Respondents : Mrs. Pami Rath, Adv. (for Respondent No.1) Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA (for Respondent No.2) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant RegistrarcumSenior Secretary pg. 1 Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02Aug2023 15:50:14 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:27.07.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT:01.08.2023 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Both the Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act") have been filed against judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2017 arising out of award dated 29.9.2016 passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Cuttack, Odisha. As both the Appeals are preferred against the same judgment, it is considered prudent to deal with them together. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. M/s Orissa Coal Chem. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Supplier") was registered as a Small Scale Industry in 1991, having its corporate office at Cuttack and factory at Dhenkanal. The Supplier had a long standing relationship with M/s National Aluminum Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Buyer") for
Delhi High Court Dr. Pradeep Dutta vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 2 May, 2022 $~ * Decided on: 02nd May, 2022 + CRL.M.C. 1203/2022 & Crl.M.A. 5222/2022 (stay) DR. PRADEEP DUTTA . .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr. C.K. Bhatt, and Mr. Sparsh Chaudhary, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Vinod Bhati, PS Greater KailashI. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Garg with Mr. Aayush Agarwal, Advocates for R2 to 5 Accused. % HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN JUDGMENT The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing]. 1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter, "CrPC"], the petitioner assails an order dated 04.12.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL JUSTICE Signing Date:04.05.2022 PRATEEK JALAN 15:37:45 CRL.M.C. 1203/2022 Page 1 of 26 "MM"] in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 34/2002, dated 04.02.2002, registered at Police Station Greater KailashI, under Sections 341, 323, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter, "IPC"]. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein are the accused in the subject FIR, which was registered at the instance of the petitioner herein. By the impugned order dated 04.12.2021, the MM has rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the CrPC for summoning of two additional witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. Facts 3. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were neighbours. The petitioner is a doctor by profession. The FIR concerns an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 30.01.2002 at 9:50 AM. The petitioner claims to have gone to the residence of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 with a process server to serve summons upon them in connection with a writ petition filed by the petitioner's mother, Mrs. Roma Dutta before this Court. The petitioner further states that the process server informed him that the addressees have refused service of summons, following which he was slapped and kicked by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and some other persons. His clothes and spectacles were damaged. He was thereafter dragged inside the premises of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and beaten up. He was also later pushed onto the driveway. The petitioner made further complaints in this regard to the police authorities on 30.01.2002, 04.02.2002 and 04.03.2002. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL JUSTICE Signing Date:04.05.2022 PRATEEK JALAN 15:37
http://www.judis.nic.in 2 1. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104 2. The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur 3. Subordinate Judge, SubCourt, Udumalaipet, Tiruppur District 4. Subordinate Judge, SubCourt, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District 5. District Munsif, District Munsif Court, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District 6. The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. By its Secretary, Public (Courts) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 [R6 impleaded vide Court Order dated 26.11.2018, made in W.M.P.No.30352 of 2018 in W.P.No.18984 of 2018 by MVJ & RPAJ] ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to give promotion to the Petitioners to the post of Senior Bailiff in the available vacancies at Subordinate Courts in Tiruppur District, on par with their juniors to whom promotions were given; without reference to the G.O.Ms.No.144, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 24.11.2017 and without accommodating any other candidates, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 For Petitioners : Mr.R.Neelakandan For Respondents : Mr.D.Kanagasundaram for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran for R1 to R5 Mr.A.Ansar Government Advocate for R6 ORDER M.VENUGOPAL, J. Heard both sides. 2. No Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondents 1,3 to 5. Counter Affidavit of 2nd Respondent is filed. Factual Matrix 3. According to the Petitioners, they are serving as Junior Bailiffs in numerous Subordinate Courts in Tiruppur District and the details of their appointments and posts are as under: Sl. Petitioners' Name Date of Post No
Bombay High Court Mohinder Rijhawani And 2 Ors vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019 Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 930, 2019 (6) ABR 112 Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Atul ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 142 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 322 OF 2019 1. Mohinder Rijhwani, 2. Prakash H Rijhwani 3. Prem H Rijhwani All Adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Construction Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Veena H Hinduja & Haresh R Hinduja, Page 1 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:36 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at B38/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. M/s. Maitri Park Co operative Housing Society, A housing society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having ofce at Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. ... Respondents A PPEARANCES IN APPL /142/2019 WITH NMCAL /322/19 FOR THE APPELLANTS/ Mr Arun Panickar, i/b Law Square. APPLICANTS FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 Ms Deepa Pohuja, with Ms Sheetal Raghavi, i/b M/s. J. Law Associates. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 Ms Sushma Singh, with Priyanka Raul. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 143 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 324 OF 2019 Page 2 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:36 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc 1. Veena h Hinduja, 2. Haresh R Hinduja both adults Indian Inhabitants residing at B38/1, Maitri park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Constructions Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 havint its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Ramesh H Gurbaxani & Laxman H Gurvaxani, Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at A/35/2, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. Ambat Ravindranath, An Indian Inhabitant having his address at A/36/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 4. Mohinder Rijhwani, Prakash H Rijhwani & Prem H Rijhwani, All adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A/30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071
Delhi High Court Orders Prafull Goyal vs Indira Gandhi National Open University on 2 May, 2025 $~34 * + W.P.(C) 5777/2025 and CM APPL.26357/2025 (Stay) PRAFULL GOYAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Bansal and Mr. Rohit Nain, Advocates. versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY.....Respondent Through: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA ORDER % 02.05.2025 CM APPL. 26358/2025 Exemption 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 5777/2025 3. The present petition assails a letter / communication dated 17.03.2025 (hereinafter 'the impugned order') issued by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (respondent) whereby the petitioner has been sought to be blacklisted "w.e.f. 13.06.2022 for a period of 2 years from the date of issue of this letter". 4. It is noticed that prior to the impugned order being issued by the respondent, on a previous occasion as well, the respondent had sought to blacklist the petitioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)7927/2024 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2024. The said order dated 29.05.2024 reads as under: "1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Letter dated 09.05.2024 issued by the Respondent blacklisting the Petitioner This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 17:21:09 from being awarded any contract by the Respondent regarding printing of study material. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that no show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner informing that the Petitioner will be blacklisted. The action of blacklisting the Petitioner by the Respondent is, therefore, contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105 and UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India & Anr., 2021 (2) SCC 551. The Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105, in categorical terms has held that the action of debarment has to be preceded by a notice specifically informing the Noticee that it will be debarred for any infringement and in the absence of any notice, the order of debarment cannot be· passed. The Apex Court has held as under: "16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a showcause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It i
Delhi High Court Orders Solarworld Energy Solutions Limited vs Sjvn Green Energy Ltd. & Anr on 30 January, 2026 $~43 & 44 * + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 34/2026 SOLARWORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ayush Aggarwala, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Aman Bajaj, Mr. Purushartha Singh, Mr. Akshat Tiwari and Mr. Wamic Wasim Nargal, Advs. M: 9289037441 Email: [email protected] versus SJVN GREEN ENERGY LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Bardhan, Advocate with Ms. Ritika Singh, Ms. Somya Sahni and Ms. Rashmi Vaish, Advocates for R1 Mob: 9081512780 Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Advocate for R2 (through VC) 44 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 35/2026 SOLARWORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ayush Aggarwala, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Aman Bajaj, Mr. Purushartha Singh, Mr. Akshat Tiwari and Mr. Wamic Wasim Nargal, Advs. M: 9289037441 Email: [email protected] versus SJVN GREEN ENERGY LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Bardhan, Advocate Page 1 of 8 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:46:02 with Ms. Ritika Singh, Ms. Somya Sahni and Ms. Rashmi Vaish, Advocates for R1 Mob: 9081512780 Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Advocate for R2 (through VC) HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA ORDER % 30.01.2026 1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") seeking prayer for restraining the respondent no. 1 from invoking or taking any steps for invocation of the Performance Bank Guarantees dated 17th January, 2024 and 16th January, 2024, respectively, as submitted by the petitioner. 2. There are further prayers for restraining the respondent no. 2 Bank from encashing or making any payment to the respondent no. 1 under the aforesaid Performance Bank Guarantees and to direct release of withheld amounts by respondent no. 1. 3. It is the