ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROLversusCCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED

                         [2019] 10 S.C.R. 855                          855


    ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD                             A
                                 v.
              CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7005 of 2017)
                          JULY 22, 2019                                B
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                   INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
       Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 –
Environment (Protection) rules, 1986 – Respondent was                  C
manufacturing and selling instant coffee – Appellant received
complaints against the appellant in regard to the environmental
pollution – A Task Force Committee was constituted by the appellant,
which after hearing the respondent issued some directions – In
addition, the appellant directed respondent to furnish bank
                                                                       D
guarantee of Rs.25 lakhs to secure the compliance with conditions
specified in the directions – Respondent furnished the required bank
guarantee – Thereafter, Board officials of the appellant inspected
the industry and observed certain violations – Pursuant thereto,
the bank guaranties were invoked and amount of Rs.25 lakhs
covered by the bank guarantees was paid over to the appellant –        E
Aggrieved, respondent moved to the Tribunal – Tribunal held that
Principles of natural justice were not followed and invocation was
unwarranted and directed appellant to refund the amount to the
respondent – On appeal, held: It was not for the bank to determine
as to whether the invocation of the bank guarantee was justified so
                                                                       F
long as the invocation was in terms of the bank guarantee – A
demand once made would oblige the bank to pay under the terms
of the bank guarantee – In the instant case, the bank correctly
understood its legal obligations and paid over the amount to the
appellant – Thus, having regard to the terms of the bank guarantees,
the principle of law formulated by Tribunal cannot be accepted –       G
Besides, it is evident from materials on record that a show cause
notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent and respondent
had also submitted a response – Thus, Tribunal erred in interfering
with the invocation of the bank guarantees, as appellant had clearly
                                                                       H
                                855
856           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     adverted to the fact that the status of compliance was reviewed in
      the Task Force Committee meeting and the officials had observed
      certain violations – The invocation of the bank guarantees was
      therefore in terms of the conditions stipulated in the bank
      guarantees.
B            The respondent commenced its operations in 1995 for the
      manufacture and sale of instant coffee. Complaints were received
      by the appellant and by the District Collector in regard to the
      environmental pollution caused by the appellant. A Task Force
      Committee was constituted by the appellant which, after hearing
      the respondent, issued directions to it on 12 August 2011. In
C     addition, the appellant directed the respondent to furnish three
      bank guarantees: two in the amount of Rs 10 lakh each and the
      third in the amount of Rs 5 lakh to secure compliance with the
      conditions. On 6 September 2011, three bank guarantees
      executed by the Bank were furnished to the appellant. The Board
D     officials inspected the industry and observed certain violations.
      Pursuant thereto, the bank guarantees were invoked on 12
      September 2012 and the amount of Rs 25 lakh covered by three
      bank guarantees was paid over to the appellant. The Tribunal
      held that the invocation was unwarranted and the amount which
      has been received by the appellant should be refunded to the
E     respondent. Hence, the present appeals.
           Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD : 1. The settled legal position which has emerged
      from the precedents of this Court is that absent a case of fraud,
F     irretrievable injustice and special equities, the Court should not
      interfere with the invocation or encashment of a bank guarantee
      so long as the invocation was in terms of the bank guarantee.
      [Para 19] [866-E-F]
             2. In the present case, the bank undertook to the appellant
G     that it would pay the guaranteed amount on demand, subject to
      the overall amount stipulated in each of the three bank
      guarantees. It was not for the bank to determine as to whether
      the invocation of the bank guarantees was justified so long as the
      invocation was in terms of the bank guarantee. A demand once

H
        ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v.                     857
                   CCL PRODUCTS (I) LTD.


made would oblige the bank to pay under the terms of the bank         A
guarantee. The Bank correctly understood its legal obligations
and paid over the amount to the appellant. In this view of the
matter and having regard to the terms of the bank guarantees,
this Court is of the view that the principle of law which has been
formulated by the Tribunal cannot be accepted as reflecting the
                                                                      B
correct legal position. [Para 20] [866-F-H]
       3. That apart, this Court is unable to accept the finding of
the Tribunal that the respondent was kept in the dark on the
invocation. It is evident that following the invocation of the bank
guarantees, the respondent itself addressed a communication on
20 September 2012 to the Member Secretary of the appellant.           C
The communication contains a specific reference to the invocation
of the bank guarantees. That apart, it is evident from the material
on the record that the appellant had issued a notice to show cause
to the respondent to which the respondent also submitted a
response. The purpose and object of the bank guarantees was to        D
enable the appellant to secure compliance with environmental
standards prescribed in accordance with law. The appellant has
invoked the bank guarantees issued by the respondent because
of the failure of the respondent to discharge the obligations
imposed upon it by the Task Force Committee on 26 August 2011.
[Para 21] [867-A-C]                                                   E

       4. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal has erred in interfering with the invocation of the bank
guarantees and in directing the appellant to refund the amount of
Rs 25 lakhs covered by the three guarantees. While invoking
the bank guarantees, the appellant has clearly adverted to the        F
fact that the status of compliance was reviewed in the Task Force
Committee Meeting; and that the officials of the appellant had
inspected the industry and had observed certain violations.
The invocation of the bank guarantees was therefore in terms of
the conditions stipulated in the bank guarantees. [Para 22]           G
[867-D-G]
      Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v Tehri Hydro
      Development Corporation Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 450 :
      [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 226 ; State Bank of India v Mula
                                                                      H
858                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A              Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 293 :
               [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 320 ; Hindustan Construction Co.
               Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 436 : [1999] 3 Suppl.
               SCR 554 – relied on.
                                Case Law Reference
B     [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 226                     relied on         Para 18
      [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 320                     relied on         Para 18
      [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 554                     relied on         Para 18
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7005
C     of 2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2016 of the National
      Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai in Appeal No. 63 of 2013 (SZ).
            T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Mrs. Gayatri Gulati Sreyas and
      Ms. Sneh Dhillon, Advs. for the Appellant.
D
           Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv., G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan
      Byrapaneni, Ms. Pilza Moonis, Ms. Priyanka M. P. and Pratibhanu Singh
      Kharola, Advs. for the Respondent.
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E              DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
               1. Admit.
             2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Green
      Tribunal1 at its Southern Zone Bench at Chennai dated 16 August 2016.
F     The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent in part and held that
      the invocation of the bank guarantees furnished to the appellant at the
      behest of the respondent was unwarranted and that the amount should
      be refunded to the respondent.
             3. Since reliefs in terms of the other prayers were declined by
      the Tribunal, the issue which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal
G
      was justified in interfering with the invocation of three bank guarantees
      issued to the appellant and in directing the appellant to refund the amounts
      covered by them to the respondent.

      1
          “Tribunal”
H
       ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v.                             859
  CCL PRODUCTS (I) LTD. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


      4. The respondent commenced its operations in 1995 for the             A
manufacture and sale of instant coffee. It was granted consent under
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. On 6 August
2008, the Union Government amended the Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 to specify discharge standards for the coffee industry.
       5. Complaints were received by the appellant and by the District      B
Collector, Guntur in regard to the environmental pollution caused by the
appellant. A notice to show cause was issued by the appellant to the
respondent on 2 August 2011. A Task Force Committee was constituted
by the appellant which, after hearing the respondent, issued directions to
it on 12 August 2011. Based on the recommendations of the Task Force
Committee, the following directions were issued to the respondent on 26      C
August 2011:
      “Part A
      Improvement of existing system
      a. The industry shall submit the efficiency of the ETP for the         D
      treatment of effluents to the board standards.
      b. The Industry shall revamp the existing APC installed to the
      boilers to meet the board specified standards.
      Part B
                                                                             E
      a. Fixation of flow meters at various points to ensure continuous
      operation of existing systems
      b. The industry shall install separate energy meters for all the
      pollution control equipments installed and submit the records to
      the RO, Guntur every month.                                            F
      Part C
      a. The industry shall store the treated effluents in lined lagoons
      only, for storing the effluents during rainy season.
      b. The industry shall use the treated effluents in industry’s own      G
      land.
      c. The industry shall provide separate storm water drains so that
      the colored effluents do not mix with the rain water.

                                                                             H
860            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           d. The industry shall empty the stored effluents in unlined lagoons
            and lagoons shall be dismantled.
            e. The industry shall not discharge any effluents outside the
            premises under any circumstances.
            f. The industry shall submit an action plan for removal of colour
B           within 30 days.”
             6. In addition, the appellant directed the respondent to furnish
      three bank guarantees: two in the amount of Rs 10,00,000 each and the
      third in the amount of Rs 5,00,000 to secure compliance with the
      conditions specified in Part A, Part B and Part C above in regard to the
C     functioning of the respondent.
             7. On 6 September 2011, three bank guarantees executed by the
      State Bank of India were furnished to the appellant. The bank guarantee
      in the amount of Rs 5,00,000 was in order to secure compliance with the
      conditions stipulated in the consent for the establishment and operation
D     of the respondent in terms of the applicable environmental standards.
      The bank guarantee covered Part C of the directions that were issued
      on 26 August 2011 which were embedded in the guarantee. The
      guarantee contained the following stipulation:
            “In accordance to the norms laid down by the Board as committed
E           by M/S CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED.
            In pursuance of the above, we M/S. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA)
            LIMITED, Guarantee the observance and performance by the
            company of the various terms and obligations as provided in the
            commitment made above and undertake to pay to the Board subject
F           to a maximum sum not exceeding Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs
            only) on demand and in the event of company failing to comply
            with the above conditions/Directions.”
      The respondent further undertook that:
            “Notwithstanding anything contain herein:
G
            a) Our liability under this Bank Guarantee shall not exceed Rs.
            5,00,000/-
            b) This Bank Guarantee shall be valid upto 06.09.2013.
            c) We are liable to pay the guaranteed amount any part thereof
H
       ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v.                            861
  CCL PRODUCTS (I) LTD. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


      under this Bank Guarantee only and only if you serve upon us a        A
      written claim or demand on or before 06.09.2013"
       8. The second bank guarantee covered Part B of the stipulation
which the Task Force Committee had required the respondent to fulfill
on 26 August 2011. The bank guarantee contained the following
stipulations:                                                               B
      “In pursuance to the above, we M/S. CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA)
      LIMITED, Guarantee the observance and performance by the
      company of the various terms and obligations as provided in the
      commitment made above and undertake to pay to the Board subject
      to a maximum sum not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten            C
      lakhs only) on demand and in the event of company failing to
      comply with the above conditions / Directions.
      Out liability under the Guarantee is restricted to Rs. 10,00,000/-
      (Rupees Ten lakhs only). Our Guarantee shall remain in force
      until 06.09.2013, unless a suit or action to enforce a claim under    D
      this guarantee is filed in writing against us before the date of
      expiry, all our rights under this guarantee shall be forfeited and
      we shall be relieved and discharged from all liabilities whatsoever
      there under.”
      Notwithstanding anything contain herein:                              E
      a) Our liability under this Bank Guarantee shall not exceed
      Rs. 10,00,000/-
      b) This Bank Guarantee shall be valid upto 06.09.2013.
      c) We are liable to pay the guaranteed amount any part thereof
                                                                            F
      under this Bank Guarantee only and only if you serve upon us a
      written claim or demand on or before 06.09.2013.”
       9. The third bank guarantee in the amount of Rs 10,00,000 covered
Part A of the stipulations which the Task Force Committee had required
the respondent to fulfill on 26 August 2011.
                                                                            G
      The bank guarantee contained the following stipulation:
      “In pursuance to the above, we M/S CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA)
      LIMITED, Guarantee the observance and performance by the
      company of the various terms and obligations as provided in the
                                                                            H
862             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A            commitment made above and undertake to pay to the Board subject
             to a maximum sum not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
             lakhs only) on demand and in the event of company failing to
             comply with the above conditions / Directions.
             Our liability under the Guarantee is restricted to Rs. 10,00,000/-
B            (Rupees Ten lakhs only). Our Guarantee shall remain in force
             until 06.09.2013, unless a suit or action to enforce a claim under
             this guarantee is filed in writing against us before the date of
             expiry, all our rights under this guarantee shall be forfeited and
             we shall be relieved and discharged from all liabilities whatsoever
             there under.
C
             Notwithstanding anything contain herein :
        a)    Our liability under this Bank Guarantee shall not exceed Rs.
             10,00,000/-
        b)    This Bank Guarantee shall be valid upto 06.09.2013
D
        c)    We are liable to pay the guaranteed amount any part thereof
             under this Bank Guarantee only and only if you serve upon us a
             written claim or demand on or before 06.09.2013.”
           10. On 12 September 2012, the appellant recorded in a
      communication to its Environmental Engineer in the regional office at
E
      Guntur that:
             “The status of compliance of was reviewed in the Task Force
             Committee Meeting held on 07.03.2012 and directions were issued
             to the industry ….for compliance.
F            The Board officials inspected the industry on 21.07.2012 and
             23.08.2012 and observed certain violations. In view of the non-
             compliance of the industry with the directions issued by the Board,
             it is decided to invoke the bank guarantee of Rs. 25 Lakhs in
             favour of the Board.
G            The EE, RO, Guntur is directed to address the Bank to invoke
             Bank Guarantee of Rs. 25.0 lakhs in favour of the Board and
             obtain the amount by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of
             the Member Secretary, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad


H
       ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v.                              863
  CCL PRODUCTS (I) LTD. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


      immediately. The original bank guarantee is to be returned to the       A
      Bank after obtaining the demand draft.”
      In pursuance of the above communication, the bank guarantees
were invoked on 12 September 2012 and the amount of Rs 25,00,000
covered by three bank guarantees was paid over to the appellant by the
State Bank of India.                                                          B
      11. Aggrieved by the actions of the appellant invoking the bank
guarantees, the respondent moved the Tribunal.
       12. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 16 August 2016 held that
the principles of natural justice were required to be followed prior to
invoking the bank guarantees. Finding fault with the appellant for failing    C
to do so, the Tribunal held that the invocation was unwarranted and the
amount which has been received by the appellant should be refunded to
the respondent.
      13. In the view of the Tribunal, the purpose of the bank guarantees
was not “commercial, contractual or industrial” since the guarantees          D
were issued to secure compliance with the directions of the appellant
regarding environmental norms that must be complied with by the
respondent. Hence, it came to the conclusion that before invoking the
bank guarantees, it was incumbent upon the appellant to serve a notice
and to furnish a hearing to the respondent.                                   E
       14. Assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, it has been urged by
Mr T V S Raghavendra Sreyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant that first, the Tribunal erred in applying the principles of
natural justice as a condition to invoke the guarantees. This, it has been
submitted, is contrary to the settled legal position. Second, it has been     F
urged that the finding by the Tribunal that there was a breach on the part
of the appellant to furnish a reasonable opportunity to the respondent is
belied by the documentary material which shows that notices were issued
by the appellant to the respondent and that the respondent was in fact
heard by the Task Force Committee. Reliance was placed on the notice
to show cause that was issued by the appellant on 9 January 2012 and          G
the response filed by the respondent on 16 January 2012. Third, it was
urged that even after the invocation of the bank guarantees, the respondent
addressed a letter dated 20 September 2012 to the appellant expressing

                                                                              H
864             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     its grievance against the invocation. Hence, it was submitted that the
      respondent cannot feign ignorance about the fact that the bank guarantees
      have been invoked. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant was
      constrained to issue a further direction to the respondent for furnishing
      an additional bank guarantee of Rs 77.50 lakhs on 12 September 2012,
      the date on which the bank guarantee was invoked. Insofar as this part
B
      of the direction is concerned, it was urged that the challenge was not
      pressed before the Tribunal. On these counts, it was urged that the
      Tribunal was in error in interfering with the invocation of the bank
      guarantees.
             15. On the other hand, Mr Sajan Poovayya, learned Senior Counsel
C     appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that first, the tenor of
      the bank guarantees indicate that they were not unconditional. It was
      urged that the bank guarantees were furnished to secure compliance
      with the specific obligations which were imposed upon the respondent in
      Parts A, B and C of the Task Force Committee’s recommendation dated
D     26 August 2011. In the present case, it was urged that the demand which
      was made to the State Bank of India was not in terms of the conditions
      specified in the bank guarantees. Second, it was urged that the respondent
      has complied with the recommendations of the Task Force Committee
      and even at this stage, it would be appropriate if the Tribunal is called
      upon to verify compliance. Third, it was urged that the letter of invocation
E     has emerged before this Court for the first time and had not been produced
      before the Tribunal. On these grounds, it was urged that the judgment
      of the Tribunal interfering with the invocation of the bank guarantees
      does not warrant interference.
             16. At the outset, we must deal with the fundamental basis of the
F     decision of the Tribunal in setting aside the invocation of the bank
      guarantee. The Tribunal held that the purpose of the bank guarantee
      was not commercial or industrial but was to secure compliance by the
      appellant with environmental norms that had been prescribed. Hence,
      in the view of the Tribunal, the appellant should have furnished a hearing
G     to the respondent before the bank guarantees were invoked.
            17. We are unable to subscribe to the legal position which has
      been formulated by the Tribunal. A bank guarantee constitutes an
      independent contract between the issuing bank and the beneficiary to

H
          ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v.                           865
     CCL PRODUCTS (I) LTD. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


whom the guarantee is issued. Such a contract is independent of the           A
underlying contract between the beneficiary and the third party at whose
behest the bank guarantee is issued.
       18. The principle which we have adopted accords with a consistent
line of precedent of this Court. In Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd,2 a three judge Bench                 B
of this Court held thus:
         “4. It is settled law that bank guarantee is an independent and
         distinct contract between the bank and the beneficiary and is not
         qualified by the underlying transaction and the validity of the
         primary contract between the person at whose instance the bank       C
         guarantee was given and the beneficiary. Unless fraud or special
         equity exists, is pleaded and prima facie established by strong
         evidence as a triable issue, the beneficiary cannot be restrained
         from encashing the bank guarantee even if dispute between the
         beneficiary and the person at whose instance the bank guarantee
         was given by the bank, had arisen in performance of the contract     D
         or execution of the works undertaken in furtherance thereof. The
         bank unconditionally and irrevocably promised to pay, on demand,
         the amount of liability undertaken in the guarantee without any
         demur or dispute in terms of the bank guarantee…
         5. …The court exercising its power cannot interfere with             E
         enforcement of bank guarantee/letters of credit except only in
         cases where fraud or special equity is prima facie made out in the
         case as triable issue by strong evidence so as to prevent
         irretrievable injustice to the parties.”
      The same principle was followed in State Bank of India v Mula           F
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd3 where a two judge Bench of this
Court held thus:
         “33. It is beyond any cavil that a bank guarantee must be
         construed on its own terms. It is considered to be a separate
         transaction.                                                         G
         34. If a construction, as was suggested by Mr Naphade, is to be
         accepted, it would also be open to a banker to put forward a case

2
    (1996) 5 SCC 450
3
    (2006) 6 SCC 293                                                          H
866               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A              that absolute and unequivocal bank guarantee should be read as a
               conditional one having regard to circumstances attending thereto.
               It is, to our mind, impermissible in law.”
             A bank guarantee constitutes an independent contract. In
      Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar4, a two judge
B     Bench of this Court formulated the condition upon which the invocation
      of the bank guarantee depends in the following terms:
               “9. What is important, therefore, is that the bank guarantee should
               be in unequivocal terms, unconditional and recite that the amount
               would be paid without demur or objection and irrespective of any
C              dispute that might have cropped up or might have been pending
               between the beneficiary under the bank guarantee or the person
               on whose behalf the guarantee was furnished. The terms of the
               bank guarantee are, therefore, extremely material. Since
               the bank guarantee represents an independent contract between
               the bank and the beneficiary, both the parties would be bound by
D              the terms thereof. The invocation, therefore, will have to be
               in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee, or else,
               the invocation itself would be bad.”
                                                             (Emphasis supplied)

E            19. The settled legal position which has emerged from the
      precedents of this Court is that absent a case of fraud, irretrievable
      injustice and special equities, the Court should not interfere with the
      invocation or encashment of a bank guarantee so long as the invocation
      was in terms of the bank guarantee.

F            20. In the present case, the bank undertook to the appellant that it
      would pay the guaranteed amount on demand, subject to the overall
      amount stipulated in each of the three bank guarantees. It was not for
      the bank to determine as to whether the invocation of the bank guarantees
      was justified so long as the invocation was in terms of the bank guarantee.
      A demand once made would oblige the bank to pay under the terms of
G     the bank guarantee. The State Bank of India correctly understood its
      legal obligations and paid over the amount to the appellant. In this view
      of the matter and having regard to the terms of the bank guarantees, we
      are of the view that the principle of law which has been formulated by

      4
H         (1999) 8 SCC 436
       ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v.                               867
  CCL PRODUCTS (I) LTD. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]


the Tribunal cannot be accepted as reflecting the correct legal position.      A
        21. That apart, we are unable to accept the finding of the Tribunal
that the respondent was kept in the dark on the invocation. It is evident
that following the invocation of the bank guarantees, the respondent
itself addressed a communication on 20 September 2012 to the Member
Secretary of the appellant. The communication contains a specific              B
reference to the invocation of the bank guarantees. That apart, it is
evident from the material on the record that the appellant had issued a
notice to show cause to the respondent to which the respondent also
submitted a response. The purpose and object of the bank guarantees
was to enable the appellant to secure compliance with environmental
standards prescribed in accordance with law. The appellant has invoked         C
the bank guarantees issued by the respondent because of the failure of
the respondent to discharge the obligations imposed upon it by the Task
Force Committee on 26 August 2011.
       22. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal
has erred in interfering with the invocation of the bank guarantees and in     D
directing the appellant to refund the amount of Rs 25 lakhs covered by
the three guarantees. While invoking the bank guarantees, the appellant
has clearly adverted to the fact that the status of compliance was
reviewed in the Task Force Committee Meeting; and that the officials of
the appellant had inspected the industry and had observed certain              E
violations. The invocation of the bank guarantees was therefore in terms
of the conditions stipulated in the bank guarantees.
       23. The invocation of the bank guarantees was the subject matter
of the present appeal. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.       F
      24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.

                                                                               G




                                                                               H