Mayfair Housing Pvt. Ltd vs Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17459 Bom

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                     IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION


                                  NOTICE OF MOTION NO.346 OF 2018
                                                    IN
                                    COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.65 OF 2012


           Mayfair Housing Private Limited                  .. Applicant/Plaintiff
                       v/s.
           Nainraj Enterprises Private Limited              .. Defendant



           Ms. Janhavi Doshi i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates for the plaintiff.

           Mr. Sandeep Parikh a/w Durgaprasad Poojari i/b. PDS Legal for the
           defendant.


                                                      CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.

DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2021.

P.C. :

1. A grievance is made by Mr. Parikh that the registry has declined

to accept the amendment to a bank guarantee dated 4 th

November, 2020 which expired on 26th April, 2021 but which

provides for a "claim expiry" date 24 th April, 2022. According to

the registry, the renewal/amendment guarantee issued by Union

Digitally Bank of India does not comply with the requirements of the signed by SANDHYA SANDHYA BHAGU BHAGU WADHWA WADHWA Date:

2021.12.17

17:25:52 +0530

15.nmcd-346-18.doc wadhwa registry. This amendment which is now produced in court is

dated 10th May, 2021 and contains a similar "Claim expiry date of

24th April, 2023. The registry has objected to the mention of a

claim expiry date since it does not comply with the format set by

the registry and followed by this court pursuant to the judgment

dated 5th March, 2020 in Admiralty suit no.2 of 2002.

2. Mr. Parikh appearing today for the defendant states that his

clients are willing to provide a guarantee in the format required

by the Prothonotary and Senior Master but the bank is unwillingly

to do so citing policy changes by the RBI which require the bank

to mention a claim expiry date. In view of this, Mr. Parikh states

that his clients are willing to provide an extension of the

guarantee. He submits that the bank has contended that the RBI

guidelines now mandate reference to the claim expiry. Since the

issue is now said to be engaging the attention of a Division Bench

of this court, Mr. Parikh states that the present guarantee be

accepted by the Prothonotary on undertaking of the defendants to

replace the guarantee with one of format approved by the registry

before April, 2022.

3. In these circumstances, the Prothonotary is directed to accept the

15.nmcd-346-18.doc wadhwa guarantee now tendered provisionally on the basis that he shall

proceed to encash the same if the suitable guarantee in

accordance with the format already notified or to be notified

after changes, if any, is not provided on or before 1st April, 2022.

4. Mr. Parikh states that he will make appropriate application on the

judicial side to seek clarification on the format.

(A. K. MENON, J.)

15.nmcd-346-18.doc wadhwa