PARAGON TECHNOLOGIES vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED Ss — 2024 CLD 153 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

PARAGON TECHNOLOGIES VS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED Ss. 13 & 5---arbitration act (X of 1940), S. 41 & Second Sched. Clause 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Contract for supply of goods---Supplies made beyond the period stipulated in the contract---Late payment charges---Unconditional bank guarantee, encashment of---Payment under the bank guarantee regardless of the dispute between the contracting parties---Scope---Bank guarantee is an independent contract and if it is unconditional the payment thereunder has to be made regardless of dispute between the contracting parties---Guarantee in the present case was unconditional and thus the demand made by respondent on the bank guarantee was required to be met by the Bank---Petitioner (supplier) had not made out the case required for the purposes of considering whether interlocutory relief should be granted to restrain payment under the guarantee---In relation to the order refusing to grant injunction by the courts below preventing respondent from making a call on the guarantee, no case for fraud had been made out---Case put forward by the petitioner that it was not in breach of its obligations, which assertion the respondent disputed, required proof for its validity and adjudication in this regard shall be done before the arbitrator(s)---Petitioner furthermore had not made any allegation about its prospective financial bankruptcy in case an injunction was refused---In any event, there did not appear to be any serious doubt about the financial position of respondent to pay the amount back to the petitioner together with compensatory costs should it succeed before the arbitrators in demonstrating that respondent could not have imposed late payment charges on it---In such circumstances, the petitioner had on facts and material before the Court failed to dislodge the burden of getting around the twin considerations underpinning the non-interference rule---Both the courts below had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for interim injunction to restrain the respondent from making any demand on the bank guarantee---Writ petition was dismissed.

PARAGON TECHNOLOGIES vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED Ss — 2024 CLD 153 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD