VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) BY these Orders I shall dispose of an application bearing No. 6425/2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Plaintiff, namely, Sea Transport Contractors Ltd. ('stc' for short) seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendant no. 1, namely, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. ('iffco' for brevity) from transmitting an alleged debt of Rs. 180,60,00,000 (Rupees one hundred eighty crores and sixty lacs only) being the equivalent of approximately U. S. dollars 40 million to Defendant No. 2, namely, industries Chimiques du Senegal ('ics' for short ). ICS has filed LA. No. 7132/2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 C. P. C. praying for the vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by me on the first date of hearing viz. 29. 5. 2006; I had restrained IFFCO from making payment to ICS unless a sum of 40 million dollars was first set aside by IFFCO and deposited by it in Escrow Account. IFFCO has filed LA. 7133/2006 also under Order XXXIX rule 4 for recalling these very Orders.

( 2 ) THE following prayers have been made in the plaint:

(a) pass a Decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant no. 1 its servants, agents and assigns from transmitting the debt of Rs. 180,60,00000/-(Rupees one hundred eighty crores and sixty lacs only) being the equivalent of approx US $ 4,00,000,00 to Defendant No. 2 or to any agent of Defendant No. 2 and/or to any other party.

(b) pass a Decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant no. 1 its servants, agents and assigns from transmitting to defendant No. 2 or to any agent of Defendant No. 2 and/or to any other party, any future payments for further purchases of phosphoric Acid from Defendant No. 2.

(c) pass a Decree of mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 1 its servants, agents and assigns to render accounts of all its purchases after the date of the present suit as well as the amounts owed to Defendant No. 2 on such purchases.

(d) pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

( 3 ) PLEADINGS have been completed in the suit as well as in all the applications.

( 4 ) THE fulcrum of the Plaintiffs case is that IFFCO and ICS are colluding with each other with a view to defeat the Plaintiff's efforts to collect its dues from ICS. It has not been controverted that IFFCO holds 20 per cent of the equity of ICS; and that the CEO of IFFCO is the President of ICS. In the course of arguments it has been strenuously submitted that ICS supplies all its phosphorus production to IFFCO and that if this supply is diminished or impeded it would adversely impact the production of fertiliser in India by iffco. It has also been contended that IFFCO was neither a party nor was granted a hearing by the Senegal Court which had ordered a moratorium on the recovery of the debts of ICS and that the said Court had not suspended payments from IFFCO to ICS. Nevertheless, the alacrity with which IFFCO is cooperating with the said Orders manifests the complete alignment of the defendants' interests. Prima facie, therefore, I find that it would be reasonable to assume at this stage of the proceedings that, because of the commonality of interests between IFFCO and ICS, they would indeed cooperate with each other even to the detriment of STC.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the Plaintiff/stc had relied on the provision of order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC to contend that the Court should order the attachment of monies due and payable by IFFCO to ICS till such time as all the claims/dues of STC from ICS are not liquidated. In the course of arguments learned counsel for STC has once again relied on the decision in mareva Compania Naviera v. International Bulkcarriers, 1980 (1) all England Law Reports 213, as well as on Section 151 of the CPC. The contention of Mr. V. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, is that the wording employed in