PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The requirement of law, while deciding an appeal, is to lay the appellate track parallel to the track on which the learned Trial Judge has undertaken the journey, and if the destination reached is a place other than the one reached by the learned Trial Judge, to highlight the junction from where the direction in the track was made; for only then can a reader of the appellate opinion understand with clarity, with least time spent, on what account the two decisions are at variance.

2. But, we regret our inability to adhere to the aforesaid principle of law on account of the reason, as conceded to by learned counsel for the parties during arguments in the appeal, the learned Single Judge has not noted many facts which were relied upon by the parties and has therefore not dealt with the submissions which were advanced, requiring us to have a virtual original hearing on the subject of : Whether the appellant was entitled to injunct respondent No.2 bank to pay any money to respondent No.1, the beneficiary under the two bank guarantees which were to secure repayment of the advance received by the appellant from respondent No.1 and one bank guarantee to secure due performance of the contract i.e. three bank guarantees issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 at the asking of the appellant.

3. On March 04, 2007, contract No.4/2000 was executed between the appellant and respondent No.1, a company incorporated in Jordan, requiring the appellant to execute, on a turnkey basis, a Gas Turbine Power Plant: 4XFr9E at Kurdistan, Iraq.

4. Being a turnkey contract, the appellant had to design the power project, supply the equipment, after testing, install the same and thereafter commission the plant and operate it for the period specified in the contract at the agreed price US$ 117 million. It is not in dispute that by a supplementary agreement dated August 04, 2008, scope of work being reduced, the price was reduced to US$ 100 million.

5. As the nomenclature of the turnkey contract: „4XFr9E’ suggests, 4 gas turbine units had to be erected.

6. The contract envisaged a performance guarantee of 10% of the value of the contract to be issued to secure due performance of the obligations of the appellant under the contract, as also advance payments to be made by respondent No.1 to the appellant, return whereof had to be secured by means of bank guarantees, as and when advance payments were made.

7. Accordingly, at the asking of the appellant, respondent No.2 issued a bank guarantee to secure due performance of its obligations by the appellant under the contract in favour of respondent No.1 in sum of US$ 11.7 million, the relevant part whereof reads as under:-

“According to the said contract the principal will furnish a performance bond for US$ 11,700,000.00 (say US dollars eleven million seven hundred thousand only) in favour of Messrs Mass Global Investment Co., Jordan (The Beneficiary) as security in the event that the Principal failed to fulfil his contractual obligations under and in conformity with the terms of the Contract.

At the request of Messrs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), New Delhi, India we State Bank of India, CAG Branch, 11th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan, 11th Floor, 1 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001, India (Guarantor) hereby irrevocably undertake to pay to you on your first written demand any amount upto USD 11,700,000.00 (Say US Dollars Eleven Million Seven Hundred Thousand only) upon receipt of your written request for payment accompanied with your signed statement stating:

(a) That the Principal has failed to fulfil their obligation in accordance with the conditions of the contract, and

(b) The amount which the Principal has failed to fulfil.

(c) The Principal has failed to perform or fulfil any of the material acts or obligations set forth under the contract, despite 30 calendar days notice having elapsed and the Principal still failing to remedy failure/defects and c