Force Majeure cannot exceed contractual limits when inconsistent factual pleas fail to justify restraint on bank guarantee encashment.

A Force Majeure clause could not be relied on beyond its contractual scope, as the clause was expressly confined to the petitioner's own factory premises. The petitioner also advanced shifting factual bases, including communal riots, cargo backlog, and a fire in the supplier's premises, which undermined the plea for writ relief. A fire at the supplier's premises did not attract the clause, and the supporting letter and cited Supreme Court authority did not assist on the facts. The challenge to encashment of the bank guarantee therefore failed, and no restraint or interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief and restraint against encashment of the bank guarantee on the basis of Force Majeure and the materials relied upon in support of that plea.

Analysis: The petitioner advanced shifting and inconsistent grounds for invoking Force Majeure, referring at different stages to communal riots, cargo backlog, and a fire in the supplier's premises. The clause was confined to the petitioner's own factory premises, so a fire in the supplier's premises could not attract its protection. Reliance on a letter dated 23 August 1996 was found unconvincing, and the cited Supreme Court decision on Force Majeure did not assist because the contractual clause in the present case was expressly limited in scope.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish any right to the requested relief, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for, and the challenge to the encashment of the bank guarantee did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Force Majeure clause cannot be invoked outside its contractual limits, and inconsistent factual foundations will not sustain writ relief.

---