JUDGMENT
S.D. Bajaj, J.
1. The contract dated April 19, 1984, for the due performance of which bank guarantee forming the basis of Civil Suit No. 86, filed on April 16, 1988, was extended by the petitioner concern to respondent No. 1–State of Punjab-has admittedly been terminated. There is thus no question of respondent No. 1 suffering any loss or damage by reason of its breach by the petitioner or encashing the bank guarantee on that account. In similar circumstances; it was held by the Delhi High Court in Synthetic Foams Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1988 Delhi 207 ; [1991] 70 Comp Cas 475, that a special equity exists in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner to the grant of ad interim injunction.
2. Learned Advocate General has referred me to the Supreme Court’s observations in United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, AIR 1981 SC 1426 ; [1982] 52 Comp Cas 186, Centax (India) Ltd. v. Vinmar Impex Inc., AIR 1986 SC 1924 ; [1987] 61 Comp Cas 697 and U. P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P.) Ltd. [1988] 1 SCC 174 ; [1989] 65 Comp Cas 283, and urged that injunction could not be issued to restrain respondent No. 1 from encashing the bank guarantee and that it was, therefore, rightly declined by the two learned courts below. In none of these authorities, was there any special equity in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. None of these authorities is, therefore, attracted for application on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. Union of India v. Meena Steels Ltd., AIR 1985 All 282 and Synthetic Foams Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1988 Delhi 207; [1991] 70 Comp Cas 475, are both authorities for the view that issuance of an ad interim injunction in such cases is proper.
4.
In the result, Civil Revision No. 643 of 1989 succeeds and is allowed and an ad interim injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from encashing the two bank guarantees furnished to it by the plaintiff-petitioner during the pendency of the civil suit aforesaid as prayed for is issued. The plaintiff-petitioner, however, undertakes to have the bank guarantees renewed for another two years. Ordered accordingly.