Pursuit Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Larsen And Tourbo Limited

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and Arb. Appln. No.97 of 2025 M/s. Pursuit Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., ...

Applicant in vs.

1. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

2. Canara Bank ...

Respondents in Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

...

Applicant in Arb. A. No.97 of 2025 vs.

1. M/s.Pursuit Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd.,

2. Canara Bank ...

Respondents in Arb. A. No.97 of 2025 For Applicant in Arb. A. No.97 of 2025 and 1st Respondent in : Mr.Anirudh Krishnan For Applicant in O.A. No.998 of 2024 and 1st Respondent in Arb. A. No.97 of 2025 : Mr.G.R. Hari For 2nd respondent in both applications : Mr.R. Jagadeesan 1/4

- - - - - Admittedly, the interim injunction earlier granted in favour of the applicant in O.A. No.998 of 2024 has been vacated by this Court through its order, dated 24.01.2025 on account of non compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of C.P.C.

2. O.A. No.998 of 2024 has been filed seeking for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondents from invoking the Bank Guarantee.

3. A preliminary counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent and in paragraph No.8 of the same, the 1st respondent has stated that the subject Bank Guarantee was never issued to the 1st respondent by the applicant or the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, they have stated that the invocation of the same by the 1st respondent or injuncting such invocation does not arise. The 1st respondent has also stated that the Bank of Ceylon has furnished a Bank Guarantee to the 1st respondent on behalf of the applicant. Further, it is stated that neither the Bank of Ceylon is a party nor the said Bank Guarantee is the subject matter of the present Section 9 application.

2/4

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has also not raised any serious objection for the statement made by the 1st respondent in paragraph No.8 of their preliminary counter affidavit filed before this Court.

5. Since the interim injunction order has already been vacated and in view of the fact that the subject Bank Guarantee was never issued to the 1st respondent by the applicant or the 2nd respondent herein, the question of granting interim injunction as prayed for in this application does not arise.

6. After recording the statement made by the 1st respondent in its preliminary counter affidavit, dated 05.02.2025 as stated supra, this application viz., O.A. No.998 of 2024 is closed. Consequently, the vacate injunction application viz., Arb. A. No.97 of 2025 is also closed. 06.02.2025 vsi2 3/4

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

vsi2 and Arb. Appln. No.97 of 2025 06.02.2025 4/4