BOBDE S.A., J.:---These are the plaintiff's motions for orders in the nature of attachment before judgment and injunction for obtaining security for a decree that might be passed in the plaintiff's favour.

2. Iridium India Telecom Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiffs", has filed this suit against the defendant No. 1 i.e. Motorola Inc., inter alia, for a declaration that the agreement dated 19-7-1993 with the defendant No. 2 and a supplementary agreement dated 15-9-1994 for purchase of stocks and shares of the defendant No. 2 are void and for a further declaration that another agreement dated 30-11-1995 called "gateway equipment purchase agreement and a restated agreement dated 10-7-1997 for the same equipment are void. As a consequence thereof, the plaintiff has sought a decree of U.S. $ 120,490,000 with further interest on the principal sum of U.S. $ 90,330,000 relatable to the amount paid by it for purchase of shares and another sum of Rs. 377,21,54,857. The particulars of claim at Exh. 'C' are in respect of to (i) Equity Investment in Iridium Lic.; (ii) expenses incurred for setting up gateway at Pune; (iii) other expenses incurred relating to Iridium system of which include several facilities like building, office equipments, etc; (iv) payment made to the Department of Telecommunication; and (v) cumulative operational losses incurred by the plaintiff till 31-3-2002. No part of the claim is based on a debt due to the plaintiff i.e. an ascertained sum of money. It is a claim for unliquidated damages based on an adjudication of the defendants' liability if the Court finds that the plaintiff was induced to purchase the equity and the equipment and to make other expenditure on the basis of fraudulent mis-statement of misrepresentation by the defendants.

3. A notable feature of the suit is that the plaintiff has sought the above sums of money by way of restitution or a declaration that the agreements under which these amounts were paid are void, having been obtained by the defendants on the ground of mis-statement, misrepresentation, etc. The suit is based on what is described as actionable mis-statement and non-disclosure by the defendants prior to the agreements and not on obligations flowing from the contract.

4. The thrust of the plaintiff's case is that it has been induced by the defendant No. 1 to invest huge sums of money in the Iridium system even though the defendants knew that the system was never capable of working. It is not the plaintiff's case that they have not received the stocks, shares and equipments they have paid for, but they have been induced upon false representation to; firstly, invest and subscribe to the equity of Iridium Inc. worth U.S. $ 70 million and then incur expenses for setting up of the gateway at Pune to the extent of 20.34 million U.S. $, even though the defendants knew well that the Iridium system of telecommunication proposed by the defendant No. 2, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the defendant No. 1 Motorola, was not capable of functioning right from the beginning.

5. The plaintiff i.e. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act on 24-10-1994. Eighty per cent of its equity is directly or indirectly held by public financial institutions, Nationalised Banks and public insurance companies, viz. the Industrial Development Bank of India, I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., State Bank of India, Export Import Bank of India, Unit Trust of India, General Insurance Corporation of India and its subsidiaries, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd.

6. Twenty per cent of the plaintiff's equity is held by Motorola, the 1st defendant.

7. The defendant No. 1 Motorola Inc. is a body corporate in the U.S.A. It was incorporated in the year 1928 and is described in the plaint as one of the world's largest Corporations. It carries on the business, inter alia of design and manufacture