AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.C. Daga, J.—Rule, returnable forthwith.
Perused Petition.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
The Petitioner is seeking the return of bank guarantee with the endorsement "cancelled". According to the submission made, by this time the department ought to have returned the bank guarantee duly cancelled, so as to enable the Petitioner to return it to its banker and get it discharged.
Needless to mention that mere pendency of the Appeal filed by the Revenue cannot be a ground to refuse to return the bank guarantee, especially, when there is no financial recovery against the Petitioner as on date. The Respondents are put on notice that it is always obligatory on the part of the Respondents to return the bank guarantee within a reasonable period with proper endorsement thereon if the purpose of security is over, so that the guarantor, who has given the guarantee can be discharged of the liability flowing from the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee can only be withheld subject to the order of the Competent Tribunal or Superior Court.
In the above view, we direct the Respondents to return the duly cancelled or discharged the bank guarantee to the Petitioner within a period of seven days from today, failing which the Department shall be liable to pay penalty quantified at Rs. 1000/- per day until it is returned. The amount of penalty shall be recoverable from the salary of the officer, who may be responsible to implement this order. The learned Counsel for the Respondents takes note of this order and undertakes to communicate the same to the concerned authority.
The Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Petitioner.