PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The present suit for permanent injunction has been filed by Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vishal Sharma (hereinafter Plaintiffs) against Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter Bank) and Wella India Private Limited (hereinafter Defendant). The reliefs sought in the present suit are as under:

“(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant No. 1 from encashing the Bank Guarantee bearing No. 0187OBG16012697 dated 30.09.2016 for an amount Rs. 15,50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Fifty Lakh Only).

(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant No. 1 from encashing the Bank Guarantee bearing no. 0187OBG16012694 dated 30.09.2016 for an amount Rs. 9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore Only)

(c) Pass an order in favour of the Plaintiffs directing the Defendants to pay costs as incurred by the Plaintiffs.”

2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it runs a chain of salons in India and renders hair and beauty services. Defendant (including its predecessor) and the Plaintiffs entered into an arrangement for promoting sale and distribution of the products of the Defendant in the Plaintiffs’ salons. The following agreements were entered into between the parties:

(a) Memorandum of Understanding dated 27th April, 2010 (MOU)

(b) Memorandum of Agreement dated 26th July, 2010

(c) Amendatory Agreement dated 1st November, 2012

(d) Amendatory Agreement dated 24th October, 2015

3. Pursuant to the above Agreements between the parties, the Plaintiff was to order, purchase and take delivery of the Defendant’s cosmetic products. Various payments were also to be made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for each of the salons established by the Plaintiffs and each of the studios to be established by the Plaintiff. Apart from that, Defendant was to also supply its products to the Plaintiff on a discount.

4. In terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff had executed two Bank Guarantees for the sum of Rs. 15,50,00,000/- and Rs. 11,00,00,000/- in favour of Defendant No. 2. The said Bank Guarantees are alleged to have been issued by the Bank after taking properties of Plaintiff No. 2, who is a director of the Plaintiff No. 1 Company, as security. The initially issued Bank Guarantees were subsequently amended on 28th December, 2017 and the new Bank Guarantees were issued for a sum of Rs. 9,50,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,00,000/-. Both the said Bank Guarantees were extended till 21st September, 2019. Various disputes arose between the parties in respect of the payments, which were to be made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to Defendant. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant owes a sum of Rs. 1,00,80,003/- to the Plaintiff. In view of the various disputes, which arose in respect of the payments, it is the case of the Plaintiffs that meetings were held between the parties in order to resolve the dispute. The last meeting was held on 25th October, 2018. The minutes of the said meeting are claimed to have been captured in the email dated 15th November, 2018 written by the Defendant. According to the Plaintiff, an agreement was reached as to the manner in which the disputes between the parties were to be resolved.

5. Subsequent to the receipt of this email, the Plaintiff states that it made a payment of Rs. 15 lakhs to the Defendant. Despite this, the Defendant invoked the two Bank Guarantees on 20th November, 2018. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking an injunction against the invocation and release of payments by the Bank to the Defendant.

6. The suit was first listed on urgent mentioning at 4:15 pm on 26th November, 2018. The Plaintiff was directed to serve the Defendants and the matter was taken up as the first item on 27th November, 2018. The Bank and the Defendant were duly represented. Submissions by Counsels were heard on behalf of all parties.

7. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Defendant has raised tw