( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for restraining defendant No. 3 from making payment to defendant No. 4 against the Bank Guarantee bearing No. FHKA/230-KA77650z/lzr dated 2. 4. 97 and also for restraining defendant No. 2 from making payment to defendant No. 3 against Bank Guarantee No. AHB/epg/1/97 dated 15. 4. 1997 and 18. 4. 1997 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3. In this connection I. A. 8866/97 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 has been filed.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-a private limited company-responded to a call for quotation No. SR/69 dated 3. 2. 1997 vide its quotation dated 3. 3. 1997. M/s,syrian Arab Republic (General Foreign Trade Organisation for Chemicals and Foodstuffs GEZA), Damascus, unequivocally confirmed the quotation of the plaintiff vide fax No. SR/127. It is stated that the quantity of 12,000 M. Tons +. 00 5% at the seller s option was essence of the agreement and could not be altered unilaterally. The value of the entire contract was settled at US$ 4,825,800 for the total quantity of 12,600 M. Tons. The said confirmation dated 10. 3. 1997 also specified a Bank guarantee on the 10% of the contract value i. e. US$ 4,82,580 to be received by defendant No. 1 within ten days from the date of confirmation i. e. 10th March,1997.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 GEZA required the plaintiff to get a Bank guarantee issued from a internationally recognised Bank, Punjab National Bank, defendant No. 2 approached defendant No. 3, Union Bank of Switzerland, Jurich. Defendant No. 3 required Punjab National Bank, defendant No. 2 to execute a counter Bank guarantee. Consequently defendant No. 2 issued counter Bank performance guarantee for the said amount of US$ 4,82,580 dated 15. 4. 1997 valid till 26. 7. 1997. Union Bank of Switzerland, defendant No. 3 in turn as per requirement approached Commercial Bank of Syria, defendant No. 4 and issued performance Bank guarantee No. FHKA/230-KA77650z/lzr dated 22. 4. 1997 for the said amount. Defendant No. 3 as per requirement of defendant No. 1 was also required to open letted of credit in the name of plaintiff to be confirmed by defendant No. 5 being representative agent of defendant No. 4 in India. Defendant No. 4, Commercial Bank of Syria opened letter of credit bearing No. 97/9242 dated 4. 6. 1997 in favour of Sachdeva and Sons E. O. U for an amount of US$ 4,825,800. Upon the receipt of said letter of credit the plaintiff found that the terms and conditions as listed in the said letter of credit were drastically different from the terms and conditions as per the contract entered upon by the parties dated 10. 3. 1997. This amounted to change the substance of the contract and the changes were unconscionable. As per contract dated 10. 3. 1997 the shipment period is mentioned for one month from receiving L/c dated 4. 6. 1997 of 6th June, 1997. There were other material changes also. The terms at site L/c and the subsequent instructions as incorporated in the letter of credit are self contradictory. It has specificaly stated in the letter of credit that negotiation under any reserve is completely prohibited. The plaintiff approached the defendant No. 1 i. e. General Foreign Trade Organisation for Chemicals and Foodstuffs, GEZA but there was no response. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 fradulently entered into the said contract as it wanted to resile from the performance of the same if the international price of the rice was reduced in the markets which at that time was an imminent possibility for the international rate of rice was $ 383 per M. Tons while present rate is only $ 305 and $ 315 per metric ton. The plaintiff has already contracted the performance in India to procure 12,600 M. Ton. On 11. 6. 1997 the plaintiff issued a letter to defendant No. 1 through Fax to the effect that the said letter of credit was inconsistent with the contract entered into between the parties on 10th March,1997 and the same be rectified by way of necessary amendments in