judicial precedents – It is unfortunate that the High Court did not consider it necessary to refer to various judicial pronouncements of this Court in which the principles which have to be followed while examining an application for grant of interim relief have been clearly laid down – The observation of the High Court that reference to judicial decisions will not be of much importance was clearly a method adopted by it in avoiding to follow and apply the law as laid down by this Court – bank guarantee.
Held, Yet another serious error which was committed by the High Court, in the present case, was not to examine the terms of the bank guarantee and consider the letters of invocation which had been written by the appellant. If the High Court had taken the trouble of examining the documents on record, which had been referred to by the trial court, in its order refusing to grant injunction, the court would not have granted the interim injunction. We also do not find any justification for the High Court in invoking the alleged principle of unjust enrichment to the facts of the present case and then deny the appellant the right to encash the bank guarantee. If the High Court had taken the trouble to see the law on the point it would have been clear that in encashment of bank guarantee the applicability of the principle of undue enrichment has no application.
.Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450, 1997 PLRonline 0008
