1

REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    Civil Appeal No 7005  of 2017  

Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board              Appellant(s)

                               Versus

CCL Products (India) Limited                      Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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.  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  was  justified  in

interfering with the invocation of three bank guarantees issued to the appellant and

1 “Tribunal”

2

in  directing  the  appellant  to  refund  the  amounts  covered  by  them  to  the

respondent.

4 The respondent commenced its operations in 1995 for the 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 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 August 2011:

“Part A Improvement of existing system a. The industry shall submit the efficiency of the ETP for the 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 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.

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 land. c. The industry shall provide separate storm water drains so that the colored effluents do not mix with the rain water.

3

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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 under this Bank Guarantee only and only if you serve

4

upon us 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:

“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  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 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:

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 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.

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 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

5

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/-  (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. 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 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 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.

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.

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 immediately.  The original bank guarantee is to be returned to the 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.

6

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 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 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.

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 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 the response filed

by the respondent on 16 January 2012. Third, it  was urged that even after the

7

invocation of the bank guarantees, the respondent addressed a letter dated 20

September 2012 to the appellant expressing 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 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 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 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 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.

8

16 At the outset, we must deal with the fundamental basis of the 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 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 whom the guarantee is issued.

Such a contract is independent of the 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 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 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  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 enforcement of bank guarantee/letters of credit except only in cases where fraud or special equity is prima facie made out in

2 (1996) 5 SCC 450

9

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 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.  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 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 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 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  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)

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.    

3 (2006) 6 SCC 293 4 (1999) 8 SCC 436

10

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 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 the Tribunal cannot be accepted as reflecting the correct legal position.

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 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 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

11

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 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 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.

24 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…..…………................................J.           (Dr  Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud)

.…………………………...............J.              (Indira Banerjee)

New Delhi July 22, 2019

12

ITEM NO.25               COURT NO.10               SECTION XVII

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  7005/2017

ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD             Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD.                          Respondent(s)

 Date : 22-07-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

For Appellant(s)                     Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR

Mrs. Gayatri Gulati Sreyas, Adv. Ms. Sneh Dhillon, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)

Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv.                     Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, AOR

Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Adv. Ms. Pilza Moonis, Adv. Ms. Priyanka M.P., Adv. Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Adv.              

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Admit.

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI)                                  (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH)                                  BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)