JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J. By this judgment I propose to decide IA Nos. 2288/2005, 3134/2005 & 5838/2006 (all under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by plaintiff) and 2758/2005 (under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code filed by defendant no.1).

2. On 4th March, 1998 the President of India acting through the Deputy Director General (Basic Services), Ministry of Communication of the Department of Telecommunications, awarded a non-exclusive licence under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to Shyam Telelink-defendant no. 2 herein, to establish, maintain and operate telephone service upto the subscriber's terminal connection in the area of the "Rajasthan circle" for an initial period of 15 years.

3. The defendant no. 2 herein issued a letter of intent, dated 30th August, 1999 to the then Tata Lucent Technologies Ltd. (subsequently known as the 'Lucent Hindustan Technologies Pvt. Ltd.') for the supply and delivery of all the equipment and performing services necessary for it for the installation of the basic services telecom network project in the territory of Rajasthan, thus expressing their willingness to place orders for the equipment and services.

4. It is stated, that the letter of intent was issued on the plaintiff's representation to provide a total financing solution as it would have secured payment for the supply of the equipment. For this reason, in the letter of intent, an undertaking was included under the heading 'Contract Financing' contained as clause 3 of the letter. The defendant no. 2 has placed heavy reliance on the following clauses 3.1 & 3.2 in this letter of intent which reads as follows:

"Clause 3--Contract Financing--

3.1 Tata Lucent Technologies Ltd. (TLTL) along with financial institutions and banks shall help STL (Shyam Telelink Ltd.) to structure and affect a total financing solution for the project.

3.2 Subject to the agreement on a mutually acceptable term sheet and the conditions precedent contained therein, if required, TLTL through their sponsors will provide a credit enhancement support to structure and effect the debt for the project."

5. Pursuant to the above, the defendant no. 2 herein and Lucent Hindustan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. entered into four contracts on 14th December, 1999. These related to supply for indigenous equipment; supply for imported equipment; a services contract and an outside plant construction contract (hereinafter referred to as `supply contract). These contracts contained similar terms and conditions.

6. So far as the questions raised before this court are concerned, one such supply contract may be considered as a typical contract. It is clearly indicated that the contract has been entered into and executed between M/s Shyam Telelink Limited (defendant no.2 herein referred to as `Telelink') and M/s Tata Lucent Technologies Limited (referred to as the "supplier").

7. Clause 4.1 of this supply contract stipulates that the supplier along with financial institutions and banks shall help the defendant no. 2 to structure and effect a total financing solution for the project, and that the supplier through their sponsors would provide a credit enhancement support to structure and effect the debt for the project.

8. Clause 7.1 described 'Lucent" to mean 'Lucent Technologies International Inc', a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. It was also clarified that Lucent is an affiliate of the supplier.

9. In clause 5.6, it was represented to the defendant no. 2 that Lucent had agreed to provide full support and back up to the supplier to enable the supplier to fulfil its obligations under this contract and that the supplier would provide to the defendant no. 2 such documentation/confirmation from Lucent as may be reasonably required.

10. The defendants submit that the conditions for contract financing agreed to under the letter of intent dated 30th August, 1999 were fundamental to the four contracts entered into between the