Kkspun India Ltd v. Ofb Tech Private Limited & ORS.
$~3 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 323/2022 KKSPUN INDIA LTD ..... Plaintiff Through:
Ms Meghna Mishra, Mr.
Ankit Rajgarhia & Mr.
Rohit Kumar, Advocates (M- 9818855771) versus OFB TECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
..... Defendant Through:
Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Adv. for D-1 (M- 9873674225)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 26.02.2024 1.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.
The present is a suit filed by the Plaintiff-M/S KKSPUN India Ltd. inter alia seeking a permanent injunction restraining the invocation and encashment of 24 bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 41,21,57,263/-, which the Plaintiff claims, was provided by it to the Defendant No. 1 under 6 purchase orders. The details of the said Purchase Orders are as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, it had supplied goods against Einvoices and E-Way bills generated on time on the GST portal to Defendant No. 1 to the tune of Rs.81,86,32,711 /-. It is averred in the Plaint that, instead of adjusting the mobilization advance pro-rata against the goods supplied, Defendant No.1 sought to adjust the entire amount of the mobilization advance against the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to them. As a result, the Plaintiff was left with no advance amount despite having provided the Advance Bank Guarantee and having supplied goods worth Rs. 81,86,32,711/- 4.
It is further averred in the Plaint that on 10th May, 2022 Defendant The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
No. 1 had issued Demand Letters to the Banks i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6, fraudulently seeking to invoke the Advance Bank Guarantees and Performance Bank Guarantees. It is stated in the Plaint that Defendant No. 1, falsely claimed that the Plaintiff has failed to fulfil its commitments in accordance with the Purchase Orders.
5.
Vide order dated 13th May, 2022, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendants Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6 from releasing any amounts under the aforesaid bank guarantees as mentioned in Document 7 filed with the Plaint. This injunction was further upheld vide order dated 19th September, 2022.
6.
An appeal was filed by the Appellant/Defendant herein in FAO(OS) (COMM) 296/2022, challenging the order dated 19th September,2022. Vide order dated 1st February, 2023, the Court held that the present case does not justify the stay of the encashment of bank guarantees and allowed the appeal.
7.
Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that he has instructions to withdraw the present suit with liberty, as the matter relates to the bank guarantees qua which injunction has been refused by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 1st February, 2024 and the same is upheld till the Supreme Court in the SLP vide judgment dated 5th February, 2024. 8.
Accordingly, the present suit is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Plaintiff to avail of its remedies in accordance with law. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 26, 2024/dk/rks/bh The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.