JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---I am passing orders on three suits which are for referring disputes to arbitration and on three petitions which are for interim reliefs in those proceedings. The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are stated in the following paragraph.

2. It will be noticed from the titles of the suits given above that the parties are the same in all the there suits. However, three different suits have been filed because they arise from three different agreements which are in respect of three different shipping vessels viz. (i) M.V. Ramey Tide, (ii) M.V. Jensen Tide, and (iii) M.V. Mire Tide. Suit No. 347 of 1991 arises from the agreement pertaining to M.V. Ramy Tide, Suit No. 348 of 1991 arises from the agreement pertaining to M.V. Jensen Tide,and Suit No. 349 of 1991 arises from the agreement pertaining to M.V. Mire Tide. These three vessels are foreign vessels which the plaintiffs had chartered from the foreign owners M/s. Tidewaters Marine Service Inc. Foreign vessels cannot be legally plied in Indian Waters without licence from the Director General of Shipping, Government of India. The plaintiffs obtained "Specified Period Licences" in respect of these vessels. Prior to the dispute, the last of such licences for M.V. Ramey Tide expired on 20th December 1990, that for M.V. Jensen Tide expired on 30th November 1990, and that for M.V. Mire Tide expired on 30th November 1990. The plaintiffs entered into three separate agreements in respect of the three vessels with the 1st defendants, under which they charter hired these three vessels to the 1st defendants for one year with effect from the date of delivery of the vessel to the 1st defendants as provided in Clause 1.2.1 of each agreement. M.V. Ramey Tide was delivered on 21st December, 1989 and the one year period in respect of the said vessel ended on 20th December, 1990. M.V. Jensen Tide was delivered to the 1st defendants on 20th November, 1989 and the one year period expired on 19th November 1990. M.V. Mire Tide was delivered on 25th November, 1989 and the one year period expired on 24th November, 1990. On 17th October, 1990 there was further renewal of the periods of the charter hire agreements for one year. This would however require extension of the licence from the Director General of Shipping and this was sought for by the plaintiffs by their letter dated 31st October, 1990 but by a telex dated 13th December ,1990 the Director General of Shipping informed the plaintiffs that the request for extension was not acceded to as per Government decision. The plaintiffs then informed the 1st defendants that the D.G. Shipping had refused to extend the licences and, therefore, the agreements would stand cancelled and to treat the communication in each case as notice under Clause 13.1 of each agreement. According to the plaintiffs on 5th January 1991 they handed over the vessels to the foreign owners from whom they had obtained the same. Further, according to the plaintiffs, on 11th January, 1991 they received a letter dated 4th January, 1991 from the D.G. Shipping that the licence for M.V. Jensen Tide was extended for three months and on 12th January, 1991 they received a letter dated 10th January, 1991 from the D.G. Shipping that the licence period for the other two ships was also extended for three months. It appears that the 1st defendants charged the plaintiffs for breach of contract and they sought to invoke the three bank guarantees that were given pursuant to the three agreements (i.e., the main agreements). In each bank guarantee there is reference to the corresponding main agreement requiring the plaintiffs to furnish a performance guarantee and the guarantee goes on to state ---

"..... The State bank of India (hereinafter referred to as THE BANK which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, include all its successors, administrators, executors and assigns) do hereby guarantee and undertake to pay to the extent of Rs. 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document