( 1 ) DUE to the alleged existence of a negative covenant in the agreement stated to have been arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No. l, the plaintiff, by this suit, wants to restrain defendant No. l from in any manner directly or indirectly pursuing or making any other agreements with defendant No. 2 or with any other party with respect to the contract for Sinter Plant-3 (Package SP3-2), raw material, storage and handling system at Bhilai Steel Plant of defendant No. 2. Alternatively, the plaintiff has claimed a decree for Rs. 5 crores against defendant No. l along With the pendente lite interest. Along with the suit, an application for injunction was filed for restraining defendant No. 1 from directly or indirectly pursuing or making any other agreements with defendant No. 2 or with any other person with respect to the aforesaid contract and further directing the said defendant to exclusively deal and cooperate with the plaintiff for the performance of the said contract, as contained in the consortium agreement dated August 19, 1995. Brief facts giving rise to the present suit are : -

( 2 ) THAT defendant No. l invited global tenders for pre-qualification for constructing a main Sinter Plant machine and raw material storage and handling system at their Bhilai Steel Plant for Sinter Plant-3 (in short REFERRED TO as the "project") and defendant No. 1 got pre-qualified in February 1995 for the said project. Proposals for the said project were thereafter to be submitted to defendant No. 2 and it was at that stage that a Memorandum of Understanding was allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on March 7, 1995 whereby they agreed to jointlyarticipate in the submission of tenders for the said project. Thereafter on March 20, 1995 another Memorandum of Understanding (in short referred as "mou") was entered into between the plaintiff, defendant No. l and defendant No. 4 whereby they agreed to act as consortium and collaborate on "exclusive right basis" in preparation and submission of the proposals for the said project and in case the same was awarded, to execute the same. The plaintiff and defendant No. l were already working jointly for the BOF shop of the Rourkela Steel Plant. It is alleged that the parties had agreed to frame a detailed consortium agreement similar to the one signed between them for the Rourkela Steel Plant. It is further alleged that at the request of defendant No. l, the plaintiff got two bank guarantees issued in the sum of collars 80,000 each required for the two tenders; that when an application was made for the bank guarantees, the Reserve Bank of India had insisted that defendant No. 3 should satisfy itself that the plaintiff was involved in the. execution of the project and in the event the guarantees were invoked, the plaintiff shall have recourse to defendant No. l; that defendant No. 1 confirmed in writing by letter dated April 25, 1995 that in case of revocation of bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff, defendant No. l undertakes to reimburse the said amount of bank guarantees to the plaintiff; subsequently, defendant No. 5was also made a member of the consortium and in August, 1995 a consortium agreement was alleged to have been entered into whereby the parties had jointly collaborated to work on "exclusive right basis" for preparation and submission of their proposals for the project and in the event of award, for execution of the same. Reliance in the suit has been placed upon the "exclusivity Clause" as contained in article 13 of the consortium agreement which is as under : -

13. 1 The Members shall collaborate on an exclusive basis in the framework of this consortium.

13. 2 From the date of signing of this Agreement and during validity of this Agreement, the Members shall cooperate exclusively within the framework of this Agreement and shall not, directly or indirectly make any other Agreements with the Customer or with any third party with