A. RAMAMURTHI, J.

Original Applications Nos. 672 and 673 of 2000 are filed by the respective applicant/plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from effecting any payment under the guarantees/counter guarantees provided by them as detailed in the schedule to the judge's summons. Application No. 3537 of 2000 has been filed by the first defendant in C. S- No. 532 of 2000 to vacate the interim order passed in O. A. No. 673 of 2000dated July 19, 2000. Application No. 4420 of 2000 has been filed by the second defendant in C. S. No. 532 of 2000 to vacate the order passed in O. A. No. 673 of 2000.

The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows: The applicant/plaintiff supplied to the respondent suspension insulators, potential transformers and current transformers covered under 17 individual purchase orders placed by the third defendant in C. S. No. 536 of 2000 and by the fourth defendant in C. S. No. 532 of 2000 on the applicant and also caused the issuance of bank guarantees by the second respondent backed by counter guarantee of the first respondent in terms of the warranty clause in the purchase order issued by the third respondent in one suit and the issuance of bank guarantee of the third respondent backed by counter guarantee of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of warranty clause in the purchase order issued by the fourth respondent in other case. Items covered by the purchase orders in respect of which the third respondent/fourth respondent had sought to invoke the bank guarantees were all supplied well over two years ago and the warranty period had also expired except in the case of one product contained in one such order. That being so, the third respondent/the fourth respondent had fraudulently and unjustly sought to invoke the bank guarantees in respect of such purchase orders. Such action will cause great hardship and loss to the applicant/plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the invocation of guarantees is null and void and for a consequential injunction restraining them from effecting any payment under the guarantees/counter guarantees given by them in relation to the purchase orders. The plaint averments will establish that the entire action of the third respondent/ the fourth respondent is a fraud being played by them on the plaintiff as well as the other respondents. If the respondents effect payment under the guarantees/counter guarantees, as the third respondent/fourth respondent being based at Egypt, it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to recover any amount from them. The notice of invocation is also not in accordance with the guarantee and therefore, the invocation is defective. The plaintiffs have made out a strong primafacie case for the grant of injunction and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour. Hence, the applications.

The first defendant in C. S. No. 532 of 2000 filed an application to vacate the interim order and denied the various averments made in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff. The three guarantees in respect of which this court has passed the interim order of injunction are irrevocable and unconditional in nature. The first of them dated April 21, 1996, was issued by the Egyptian bank in favour of the beneficiary undertaking payment on behalf of the plaintiff, a sum upto the extent of US dollars 15, 838 to the beneficiary upon first demand and notwithstanding any contestation. The Egyptian bank issued the said guarantee on a request from and against a counter guarantee of the London bank, who in turn, made the said request and issued the counter guarantee. The said request was made on the basis of are quest made who unconditionally and irrevocably undertook to reimburse to the bank all amounts which the bank may be obliged to pay, if the guarantee is invoked and to indemnify the bank against all losses, costs and charges which may be incurred by the bank on account of the is