( 1 ) THE plaintiff through the above application want this Court to issue a direction to defendant No. 2 herein not to make payment to defendant No. 1 under the bank guarantee No. 796/372/95 dated June 22, 1995 for Rs. 50 crores.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which led to the presentation of the aforementioned application are as under: that the plaintiff herein submitted an offer in response to tender enquiry No. 314- 7/94-PHC dated June 22, 1995 on January 1, 1996 alongwith an earnest money bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 50 crores vide bank guarantee No. 796/372/95 through Deutsche Bank for the provision of telephone services on license for the service area of Tamil Nadu. The guarantee period of the said bank guarantee was extended from time to time on the request of defendant No. 1. The bid of the plaintiff for telecom circle of Tamil Nadu was found to be the highest. Accordingly defendant No. 1 by their letter dated March 13, 1996 issued a letter of intent to the plaintiff for award of license to provide telephone services on non exclusive basis in Tamil Nadu telecom territorial circle and asked the plaintiff to convey their unconditional and unequivocal acceptance of the letter of intent and to furnish performance bank guarantee and financial bank guarantee in the requisite amount on the prescribed form. The said letter of intent dated March 30, 1996 issued by the defendant was not accompanied by a draft license agreement and draft inter connect agreement which was a mandatory requirement as per the terms and conditions of the tender documents. The plaintiff through their letter dated March 29, 1996 informed defendant No. 1 their inability to furnish the performance and financial bank guarantee, in the absence of the draft license agreement, and inter connect agreement as the same were to be defined by the said documents. In the above circumstances the plaintiff requested defendant No. 1 to extend the time to submit the letter of acceptance. Defendant No. 1 extended the date for acceptance of the letter of intent by four weeks through their letter dated April 11, 1996. Defendant No. 1 subsequently through their letter dated July 1, 1996 furnished to the plaintiff the draft of the license and the inter connect agreements and called upon the plaintiff to convey their unequivocal and unconditional acceptance of the same by their letter dated July 17, 1996. On receipt of the draft inter connect and license agreement the plaintiff undertook a detailed study of the said documents. After having studied the said documents the plaintiff vide their letter dated July 19, 1996 intimated defendant No. 1 that there were several issues which arose from the said agreements and the same were to be negotiated and mutually resolved and a date for signing of the agreement should be fixed only after the resolution of the said issues. Defendant No. 1 vide their letter dated July 23, 1996 communicated to the plaintiff their inability to extend the date. However, they agreed to mutually discuss the above issues and a meeting in connection therewith was held on July 25, 1996. The plaintiff vide their letter dated July 26, 1996 submitted an initial list of comments on the draft license and inter connect agreements. Defendant No. 1 through their letter dated July 30, 1996 extended the date for acceptance of the letter of intent upto September 12, 1996. The plaintiff also accordingly extended the validity of the bid and the validity of the bank guarantee upto October 31, 1996. Defendant No. 1 through their memorandum dated September 7, 1996 revised the draft of the license and inter connect agreements and sent the same to the plaintiff and called upon them to intimate the date and time of the signing of said agreements. However, even the revised drafts received by the plaintiff did not address all the issues raised by the plaintiff. Hence a request was made to the defendant for time to study the revised license and inter connect agreements. T