( 1 ) I have given my earnest thought to the matter in the light of the respective contentions canvassed by learned counsel for parties. I find that the basic principle that emerges on reading of all the decisions as cited on both sides, is that the terms of the bank guarantee are the most relevant, and in fact, the sole guiding factor, and further determining point in such a case would be the manner in which the bank guarantee has been invoked by the beneficiary, and in that context the terms of the demand letter assume great relevance as well as significance.

( 2 ) I must record at the outset that in view of the conspectus of the judicial authorities, the question as to the nature and import of a bank guarantee is settled, to the effect that it constitutes an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary, and the existence of any dispute between the principal contractor and the said beneficiary or even pendency of litigation by way of civil suit or arbitration proceedings in respect thereto, would also not be a deterring factor in the way of the beneficiary to invoke the bank guarantee. Nevertheless, with due deference to the principles laid down in the cases