( 1 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties following preliminary issue has emerged for determination:

"whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?

( 2 ) THIS is a suit for perpetual injunction for restraining defendant No. 2 from seeking payment from defendant No. 3 under the bank guarantee dated 8/10/1999 and also for restraining defendant No. 3 from making any payment to defendant No. 2 under the said bank guarantee.

( 3 ) RELEVANT facts, in-short, are as under: the plaintiff entered into a contract dated 26/03/1999 to sell and supply certain Electro-Mechanical equipments to the defendant No. 1 and thereafter commission the same in the Agnoor hydroelectric project to be constructed by defendant no. 1 for defendant No 2. As per the contract, the defendant No 1 agreed to give a mobilisation advance of Rs. 65 lacs to the plaintiff which was as per letter of indent to be given into two instalments of Rs. 40 lacs and 25 lacs. The amounts were to be secured by giving of bank guarantees by the plaintiff which were to be issued in favour of defendant No. 2. Terms of payment, as per clause 3. 1 were as under:

"the changes mentioned by you in advance payment are contrary to the agreement already reached between us which was the basis for reduction in prices agreed by us during our discussions in Faridabad on 28. 2. 99. We, therefore, request you to keep this clause unchanged. However, if you wish to break the advance as stated in your letter, we shall give B. G. only for the first Rs. 40. 0 lacs and no B. G. shall be given for release of Rs. 25. 0 lacs as this will not be an advance payment, but payment against submission of detailed drawings (work done)"

( 4 ) THE plaintiff gave the first bank guarantee dated 22/04/1999 issued by defendant No 3 to the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1, in response thereto, by way of bank drafts dated 12. 6. 99 of Bank of Baroda, Hazra Road, Calcutta, payable at New Delhi, sent to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 35 lacs. The plaintiff sent the second bank guarantee dated 8. 10. 99 issued by the defendant No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 30 lacs to the defendant No. 1 by requesting to defendant No. 1 to release the advance payment at the earliest. Thus, both the bank guarantees given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 were to secure the mobilisation amount of Rs. 65 lacs which the plaintiff was to receive from the defendant No. 1. It is averred by the plaintiff that very basis of giving of bank guarantees was that it receives moneys in advance from the defendant No. 1/buyer. In the instant case the plaintiff has not received any amount from defendant No. 1 in respect of second bank guarantee dated 8th October, 99 for Rs. 30 lacs on the ground that the plaintiff has not yet given the detailed drawings of the equipments which it was to supply for the project.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff has invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this court qua defendant no. 1 on the premise that payment under the sub-contract were received at new Delhi by way of bank drafts which were payable at New Delhi and were sent by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff at New Delhi and further that the payments under the bank guarantee were to be collected by the S. R. Branch, Bank of baroda at New Delhi. Besides this the sub-contract was entered into at New Delhi because the acceptance letter dated 16/04/1999 sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 was despatched and sent from New Delhi.

( 6 ) IN support of the contention that a place where payment under a contract is received is a territorial jurisdiction of the court with respect to the contract, Mr. Valmiki Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd and Another v. A. P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239 wherein the manufacturer and supplier of the goods having its registered office at Udyognagar, mohamadabad, Gujarat entered into an agreement whereunder they were to supply yarn to the respondent within the jurisdiction of civil