1. The background to these applications is that Millennium Wires (P) Limited (Plaintiff No.1) and State Trading Corporation of India Limited (Plaintiff No.2) have filed the aforementioned CS (OS) No. 545 of 2012 against Allahabad Bank (Defendant No.1), Synergic Industrial Material Services PTE Ltd. (Defendant No.2), Synergic Industrial Material Services Malaysia (Defendant No.3) and Malayan Banking BHD (Defendant No.4) for permanent, mandatory and perpetual injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from honouring the Letters of Credit (‘LCs’) opened by Plaintiff No.2 at the request of Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant No.2 for the import of ‘Continuous Cast Copper Wire Rod’. The LCs was opened through Defendant No.1 (Issuing Bank) and was payable to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 through Defendant No.4 (Negotiating and Beneficiary Bank).

2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that two reliefs sought in prayer (b) for an injunction restraining Defendant No.2 from taking any benefit under the LCs and prayer (c) restraining Defendant No. 4 from making payments under the LCs had already been rendered infructuous by the time the suit was filed on 28th February 2012. On 2nd March 2012, while directing summons to issue in the suit, the Court passed the interim order in IA No. 4103 of 2013 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’) restraining Defendant No.1 from honouring the LCs and also restraining Defendant No.2 from taking any benefit and/or taking any action under the LCs.

3. It may also be noted that although the suit initially was filed against Defendant Nos.5 to 12, they were they were deleted from the array of parties at the request of the Plaintiffs since no relief was sought against them.

4. Defendant No.1 filed its written statement on 30th June 2012 and Defendant No.4 filed its written statement on 7th February 2013. Defendant No.4 also filed IA No.2126 of 2013 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. IA No.2128 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint and IA No.2127 of 2013 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacating the interim order dated 2nd March 2012, were also filed by Defendant No.4.

5. The Court has heard the submissions of Ms. Maneesha Dhir, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr. Shiv Shankar, learned counsel for Defendant No.1 and Mr. Ajay Monga, learned counsel for Defendant No. 4. None appears for Defendant Nos.2 and 3 despite service.

6. The case of the Plaintiffs is that for the past 7-8 years, Plaintiff No.1 has been importing Continuous Cast Copper Rods from Defendant Nos.2 and 3 which are group companies based in Singapore and Malaysia respectively. With a view to importing 400 metric tons (‘MTs’) of the said product, in lots of 50-75 MTs per shipment, Plaintiff No.1

entered into an ‘Associateship Agreement’ (‘AA’) with Plaintiff No.2 on 2nd December 2011. The AA envisaged import of the goods from Defendant Nos.2 and 3 for Plaintiff No.1 through Plaintiff No.2 on various terms and conditions. Clause 16 of the AA required Plaintiff No.1 to indemnify Plaintiff No.2 (STC) for any loss, damage or cost which Plaintiff No.2 (STC) may incur with regard to the import. Under Clause 17, in the event that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not perform their obligations or the contract was cancelled for any reason by them, Plaintiff No.2 was entitled to receive from Plaintiff No.1 all costs incurred by it along with the trading margin. It is stated that Plaintiff No.1 placed several orders for supply of the goods on Defendant No.2 through Plaintiff No.2 For the said purpose, LCs were opened by Plaintiff No.2 through Defendant No.1 (Issuing Bank) payable to Defendant Nos.2 and 3 through their Banker, Defendant No.4, which is the Negotiating/Beneficiary Bank. According to the Plaintiffs, as per the general and common practice, oral orders were placed by Plaintiff No.1 on Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter, Defendant Nos.