M/s OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd v. Ir//s Chaitanva Energy Private Limited

PetitionunderSectionl5.tCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of tlte petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dl' 0310612024 in W'P' No. 28781 of 2024 insofarasthedirectiongivenatparu2Tthereinthattheinterimorderdated 1211012023, whereby the encashment of the subject bank guarantees by the Respondent No.2 and the Appellant has been restrained' shall continue to remain in force for er teriod of four weeks from the date of recei6rt of the copy of the order is concerned and consequently allow the Petitioner/Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 to encash the subject bank guarantees, pending disposal of the above writ aPPeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRIRAM POLALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MS. VAISHNAVI AMBADIPUDI, REPRESENTS M/S R.S. ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS. ALKA THAKUR, REPRESENTS FOR MS. V. DYUMANI, SC The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT ,{: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JuSTTCE SUJOY PAUL AT{D THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No. 696 of2O24 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) SriSriramPolali, learnedcounselfortheappellant; Ms.VaishnaviAmbadipudi, learnedcounselrepresentsM/s.R.S. Associates, for respondent No'1/writ petitioner and Ms' Alka Thakur, lqarned counsel represents Ms' V' D5rumani' learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2'

#2. With the consent, finallY heard'

#3. Learned.counselfortheappellant, byplacingrelianceon paragraph No.26(d) of the impugned order dated 03'06'2024 in W.P.No.2878 I of 2023, submits that the learned Singte Judge in no uncertaintermsmadeitclearthatthewritpetitionerisnotentitled for any relief and interim order gralted on 12' lO '2023 was directed to be vacated. However, in paragraph No'27 of the impugned order' learned Single Judge again continued the interim order for a period of four weeks to enable the writ petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. The challenge is confined to the extent of paragraph No'27 of the impugned order whereby interim relief was continued' He submits that the period of four weeks granted by the writ court is' even otherwise, over and the protection given in paragraph No'27 2 runs contra{/ to the hnding given in paragraph No.26(d) of the impugned order.

#4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner supported the impugned order.

#5. A conjoinr reading of paragraph Nos.26(d) and 2Z of the impugned order shows that both contain mutually inconsistent findings. In praragraph No.26(d), it was opined that the writ petitioner is not. entitled for any relief ald ad. intertm order dated I2.IO.2O23 u,as; vacated. Whereas in paragraph No.27 of the impugned order. rbr a period of four weeks, the ad inteimorder was continued.

#6. The Apex Oourt in Kalabharathi Adwertising v Hemant Vimalnath Narir:haniar opined that if High Court is not entertaining the v,'rit petition and relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedr', it is not proper to grant interim relief for interregnum perio,1. Relevant para reads thus: "22. It is a serrl j-(1 legal proposition that the forum of the writ court ca-nnot be usecl ;br the purpose of giving interim relief as the oniy and the hnal relief to trny litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter reqtrir.t:s adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the s:rirj party to that forum, it should not g.rnt any interim relief in favour oi-such a litigant for an interregnum period till rhe said party approactres the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide State o/ Cr's.so v. Madan Gopal Rungta [19S 1 SCC lOj24: AIR 1952 SC i2l. t\ltctrsarjit Singhv. State of Rtnjab [AlR 1962 SC ' 1zoro1 s scc a:z t I 3