Unconditional bank guarantee enforcement tempered by limited interim protection pending arbitration and substitution security.

An unconditional bank guarantee was treated as ordinarily enforceable on valid invocation, with the bank not concerned with the underlying dispute. Allegations of fraud were rejected for want of material particulars, and special equity was found insufficient to restrain encashment on merits. However, because the substantive dispute remained pending in arbitration, the Court granted limited interim protection by allowing substitution security through a fresh bank guarantee and indemnity arrangement, together with a brief restraint on immediate realisation.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unconditional bank guarantee could be restrained from being encashed pending arbitration, and whether interim protection should be granted to preserve the petitioner's position until the dispute was adjudicated.

Analysis: The dispute arose from the invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee in relation to an asserted service tax liability. The Court noted that, as a general rule, an unconditional bank guarantee must be honoured when validly invoked and the bank is not concerned with the underlying contractual dispute. The plea of fraud was found to be unsupported by material particulars, and the petitioner's reliance on special equity did not justify unconditional interference with the guarantee. At the same time, the Court recorded that the substantive dispute had not been decided and was to be resolved in arbitration. To balance the equities, the Court permitted temporary protection by directing substitution of the amount through a fresh bank guarantee and indemnity arrangement, together with a short restraint on realisation.

Conclusion: The invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee was not interdicted on merits, but limited interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner by restraining immediate realisation for a short period and permitting substitution security pending arbitration.

---