As per case facts, the appellants terminated a work order citing the respondent's poor performance and sought to encash an unconditional bank guarantee securing an advance payment. The respondent filed ... a Section 9 petition before the Commercial Court seeking an ex parte stay, which was rejected. The respondent then approached the High Court under Article 227, which granted an interim order restraining the encashment of the bank guarantee until the Section 9 petition was disposed of. The appellants, arguing that the respondent had an alternate remedy via a Section 37 appeal and that encashment of an unconditional guarantee should not be interdicted, appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 to interdict the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee despite the alternate remedy of a Section 37 appeal. Finally, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal without deciding the substantial legal questions, which were left open. The Court found that the High Court's order was an interim measure passed with the consent of the parties and that no prejudice was caused to the appellants as the bank guarantee had been extended. The Commercial Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the Section 9 petition and pass an order within eight weeks.