A. N. SEN, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a final judgment passed by Mrs. Padma Khastagir J. on the 19th December, 1979 in a proceeding under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the bank for recovery of a sum of Bs. 23,11,507 on the basis of a bank guarantee, interest and costs. In the said suit the plaintiff made the present application for final judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. The learned Trial Judge passed a decree for the amount claimed in the plaint with interim interest and further interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum and costs. It appears that the learned Judge did not deliver any judgment in support of the order passed. Against the said order of the learned Trial Judge the defendant bank has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) TWO main contentions have been raised by Mr. Bachawat who appeared on behalf of the appellant bank in this appeal and the said contentions are: (1) the said bank guarantee had not become enforceable and the learned trial Judge was not right in passing a decree on the basis of the said guarantee and in enforcement thereof; (2) this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. ( 3 ) IT may be noted that the defendant bank had also made an application before the learned trial Judge for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent granted by this Court to the plaintiff for instituting this suit in this Court. The said application of the defendant was also dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. It appears that no appeal against the said order of the learned Trial Judge has yet been filed, though the time for preferring the appeal has not yet run out. ( 4 ) THE facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be briefly stated. On the 18th October, 1978 Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. addressed the following letter to the plaintiff: 'from: Chemopulp Tissues. Dated 13th October, 1978. To: electrosteel Castings Ltd. , stephen House, 4, B. B. D. Bag,, calcutta-l. Re: Outstanding loan of Rs. 34,24,267. Dear Sirs, we have already paid to Messrs. Khaitan and Co. on your behalf the sum of Rs. 14,24,267 by cheque No. CA/e-757023 drawn by Mr. Dated 13th October, 1978. To: electrosteel Castings Ltd. , stephen House, 4, B. B. D. Bag,, calcutta-l. Re: Outstanding loan of Rs. 34,24,267. Dear Sirs, we have already paid to Messrs. Khaitan and Co. on your behalf the sum of Rs. 14,24,267 by cheque No. CA/e-757023 drawn by Mr. B. N. Jhunjhunwala on Mercantile Bank Ltd. towards part repayment of the above loan. The balance sum of Rs. 20 lacs will be repaid to you by us as follows : (a) Rs. 10 lacs within 12 months from the date of this letter; (b) Rs. 5 lacs within 18 months from the date of this letter; and (c) the balance sum of Rs. 5 lacs within 24 months from the date of this letter. The aforesaid sums will carry interest @ 15% per annum commencing from the date of this letter and interest will be paid to you half-yearly. In the event of default of any instalment of principal or interest for a period of more than 3 months the entire amount will become due immediately. Yours faithfully, for CHEMOPULP TISSUES LTD. Sd. . . . . . . . . . . Director. ' ( 5 ) THE appellant executed a guarantee far due repayment of the said loan of Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. on the 8th December, 1978. It is necessary to set out the said Bank Guarantee in its entirety. The Bank Guarantee reads as follows: 'this GUARANTEE has on this eighth day of December One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Eight been given by the Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. , a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act, and having its principal place of business at Cannaught Circus, New Delhi and also carrying on business, inter alia, at New Delhi hereinafter called 'the BANK' (which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the subject or context mean and include its successor or successors and assigns) of the One Part to ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its administrative office at Stephen House, 4, Benoy Badal Dinesh Bag in the town of Calcutta hereinafter called 'the COMPANY' (which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the subject or context mean and include its successor or successors and assigns) of the Other Part. WHEREAS : (I) On account of dealings and transactions had between Chemopulp Tissues Limited an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at A-4, Sector XXII Meerut Road, Ghaziabad U. P. (hereinafter called the 'borrower') and the Company there was due and owing from the Borrower to the Company a sum of Rs. 34,24,267 (Rupees thirty-four lacs twenty-four thousand two hundred and sixty-seven) only. (ii) The Borrower has already paid to the Company a sum of Rs. 14,24,267 towards part repayment of the said loan leaving a sum of Rs. 20 lacs still due and outstanding by the Borrower to the Company. (iii) By a letter dated the 13th October, 1978 copy enclosed from the Borrower to the Company it was agreed that the borrower would repay the said sum of Rs. 20 lacs to the company with interest thereon @ 15% per annum commencing from 13th October, 1978 in the following manner: (a)rs. 10 lacs within 12 months from the date of the said letter dated 13th October, 1978. (b)rs. 5 lacs within 18 months from the date of the said letter dated 13th October, 1978. (c) The balance sum of Rs. 5 lacs within 24 months from the date of the said letter dated 13th October, 1978. (iv) Since the said Agreement as embodied in the said letter dated the 13th October, 1978 it has been, further agreed by and between the Borrower and the Company that as security for due repayment of the said loan with interest thereon as aforesaid by the Borrower to the Company the Borrower would procure a Bank Guarantee for the said amount in favour of the company being these presents. (v) In consideration of the Company's agreeing to accept the balance of the said loan of Rs. 20 lacs (Rupees twenty lacs) due and payable by the Borrower to the Company by instalment as and in the manner provided in the said in part recited Agreement dated 13th October, 1978 the Bank has at the request of the borrower and with the approval of the Company agreed to issue a guarantee which is required to be furnished in terms of the agreement hereinbefore mentioned irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteeing payment to the Company of the said balance sum of Rs. 20 lacs (Rupees twenty lacs) and interest thereof as and in the manner provided in the said in part recited agreement dated 13th October, 1978. NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH and it is hereby covenanted by the Bank to the Company as follows: (1) The Bank doth hereby irrevocably guarantee unconditional payment to the Company of the said sum of Rs. 20 lacs (Rupees twenty lacs) and all interest that may be due and]or payable by the Borrower to the Company in terms of the said in part recited agreement as embodied in the said letter dated the 13th October, 1978 from the Borrower to the Company. (2) The Bank doth hereby further covenant with the Company that should the company for any reason whatsoever does not receive payment of the said balance sum of Rs. 20 lacs (Rupees twenty lacs) or any portion thereof or any interest thereon from the Borrower as and or in the manner provided in the said in part recited agreement as embodied in the said letter dated 13th October, 1978 as aforesaid, the Bank shall unconditionally and without any reference to and not withstanding any objection of the Borrower pay the same to the Company on demand and such amounts and interest thereon shall be payable to the Company without notice of default or notice of any other kind being required to be served by the Company on the Borrower. (3) The Bank shall not be released by reason of any time being given by the Company to the Borrower or any other acts or commission whatsoever on the part of the Company or any other indulgence by the Company to the Borrower or any other acts matters or things whatsoever by and/or on behalf of the Company which under the law relating to sureties would but for this provision have the effect of so releasing the Bank from this Guarantee. (4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained the Company shall be entitled to act as if the Bank was the principal debtor to the Company for all payments guaranteed by it as aforesaid to the Company and the Guarantee contained in these presents will be irrevocable by the Company under and/or in terms of and in the manner provided in the said in part recited further agreement hereinbefore mentioned. (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained all payments which may be due and/or payable by the Bank under and/or in terms of this Guarantee will be duly made by the 33ank to the Company in spite of and notwithstanding any objection of any kind whatsoever by and/or on behalf of the Borrower and inspite of and notwithstanding any defaults and/or breach of any covenants and/or agreement if any between the Hank and the Borrower. (6) Any demand made in writing by the Company to the Bank under this Guarantee shall be conclusive and binding on the Bank of its liability under this guarantee and of the amount due and the Bank shall make payment of such amount to the company without making any reference to the Borrower. (7) The Guarantee given by these presents shall not in any circumstances be affected on account of any act commission and/or insolvency of the borrower and the company or any of them and/or by any change in the constitution of the Bank or the Borrower. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained herein, our liability under this guarantee is restricted to Rs. 2,00,0000 (Rupees twenty lakhs only) with interest at 15% and the same shall remain in force until 31st December, 1980 unless a suit or an action to enforce a claim under the guarantee is filed against us within 3 months from that date, all your rights under the said guarantee shall be forfeited and we shall be released or discharged from all liability thereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the bank has executed these presents the day month and year first above written. SIGNED on behalf of the said The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. For the Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. Sd. . . . . . . . . Manager. International Banking Division, 6, Scindia House, New Delhi. Signature of Shri J. S. Chopra. Verified. Sd. . . . . . . . . . . 18-12-78. ' ( 6 ) IT is alleged in the plaint that Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. had defaulted in payment of interest in terms of the agreement and the entire amount had become due and payable by Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. and the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant bank for recovery of the said entire amount with interest on the basis of the guarantee given by the bank. ( 7 ) IT may be noted that while the said proceeding under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court was pending before the learned Trial Judge, Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. made an application before the learned Trial Judge for being added as a party to the said suit. The said application of Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. for being added as a party to the said suit and to the said proceeding was also dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Against the said order of the learned Trial Judge dismissing the application of Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. , Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. had preferred an appeal. The said appeal is appearing on the list immediately after the present appeal. ( 8 ) WHILE this appeal was being heard Mr. Deb, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. in the appeal preferred by Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. , submitted that he should be permitted to make his submission while this appeal was being heard by this Court, as otherwise his appeal might be irreparably prejudiced. It was the submission of Mr. Deb that the dismissal of this appeal would irreparably prejudice the appeal preferred by his client. After hearing submissions of the parties, we permitted Mr. Deb to make his submission. ( 9 ) THE first contention which has been raised by Mr. Bachawat is that the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the said bank guarantee, as there has been no default on the part of Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. in the matter of payment in terms of the agreement between Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. and the plaintiff, and, as there has been no default in the matter of payment, the bank guarantee has not become enforceable. We may indicate that this submission of Mr. Bachawat was also supported by Mr. Deb. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent it was submitted that clearly there had been default in payment of interest in terms of the agreement between the parties and in view of the said default the entire amount under the agreement has become due and payable. It has been further submitted that in any event it is not open to the bank to raise any such dispute in view of the nature of the guarantee given by the bank. It has been further submitted that in any event it is not open to the bank to raise any such dispute in view of the nature of the guarantee given by the bank. ( 10 ) IN support of this submission that in view of the nature of the guarantee given by the bank in the instant case the very demand made by the plaintiff on the bank for the amount makes it obligatory on the part of the bank to pay the money without raising any kind of objection, the plaintiff respondent has relied on two decisions of two Division Benches of this Court; (1) Bird and Company v. Tripura Jute Mills and another, 83 Calwn 802 and (2) Texmaco Limited v. State Bank of India and others, 83 Calwn 807. ( 11 ) WE have earlier set out the guarantee in its entirety. Clause 1 of the guarantee makes it clear that the bank irrevocably guaranteed unconditional payment to the company of the sum of Rs. 20 lacs and all interest that may be due and payable by the borrower to the company in terms of the said in part recited agreement as embodied in the letter dated the 13th October, 1978 which we have also earlier set out. Clause 2 makes it clear that the bank would unconditionally and without any reference to and notwithstanding any objection by the borrower pay to the company the balance sum of Rs. 20 lacs or any portion thereof on demand and such amount of interest thereon as shall be payable to the company without notice of default or notice of any kind being served by the company on the borrower. Clause 5 of the guarantee makes it clear that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the guarantee all payments which may be due and/or payable by the bank under or in terms of the guarantee will be duly made by the bank to the company in spite of and notwithstanding any objection of any kind whatsoever by and/or on behalf of the borrower and inspite of and notwithstanding any default and/or breach of any covenants and/or agreement, if any, between the bank and the borrower. Clause 6 provides that any demand made in writing by the company to the bank under the guarantee shall be conclusive and binding on the bank of its liability under the guarantee and of the amount due and the bank shall make payment of such amount to the company without making any reference to the borrower. On a plain reading of these provisions of the guarantee and on its true construction, it clearly appears that the bank had given an unconditional guarantee to pay to the plaintiff the amount due and payable under the said guarantee without raising any kind of objection or protest and notwithstanding any kind of objection made by the borrower, and the demand made by the company on the bank is conclusive and binding on the bank not only of its liability under the guarantee but also of the amount which may be due under the said guarantee. ( 12 ) IN view of the said provisions in the guarantee we are of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the bank that the bank guarantee has not become enforceable in the instant case as there has been no default in payment in terms of the agreement between the plaint and Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. is without any substance. The demand by the company in view of the provisions contained in the guarantee is conclusive proof of the amount due and payable under the guarantee and the bank in law is bound to pay the same. ( 13 ) IN the case of Bird and Co. v. Tripura Jute Mills and another 83 Calwn 802 this Court had occasion to consider a bank guarantee the terms of which are more or less similar to the bank guarantee in the instant case. Delivering the judgment of the Division Bench in that case I held that the bank was liable to pay the money on the basis of the guarantee and the objection on the part of the borrower was of no avail and the bank could not be restrained from performing the said guarantee. In the said decision I had occasion to consider earlier decisions of this Court and also the decision in the case of Edward Omen Engineering Ltd. v. Barclays Bank (1977) 3 WLR 764. In the said decision I had occasion to consider earlier decisions of this Court and also the decision in the case of Edward Omen Engineering Ltd. v. Barclays Bank (1977) 3 WLR 764. ( 14 ) THE other decision in the case of Texaco Ltd. v. State Bank of India, to which I was also a party, is reported 83 Calwn 807. Ghose, J. speaking on behalf of the Bench held after reviewing various decisions that in view of the provisions contained in the said Guarantee, which were more or less similar to the provisions contained in the guarantee in the instant case, the Bank was bound to honour the said guarantee and to pay in terms thereof and no order of injunction should be passed restraining, the bank from making payment in terms of the guarantee. It is no doubt true that the said two decisions were on an interlocutory application for order of injunction restraining the bank from making payment in terms of the guarantee and the instant case is one of final decree against the bank. The principles of law, laid down, however are applicable to the present case. If the bank has undertaken unconditionally and unequivocally to pay under the guarantee executed by the bank, the bank has to honour its commitment under the guarantee. We are, therefore, of the opinion, no triable issue does arise in the instant case as to whether there was any default on the part of the borrower in view of the provisions of the guarantee which we have earlier set out. ( 15 ) THE next contention urged by Mr. Bachawat, as we have earlier noticed, is that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This suit had been instituted with leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Such leave has been granted on the basis of averments made in paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 of the plaint. We have earlier noticed that the appellant bank made an application for revocation of leave and the said application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. As yet, no appeal has been preferred against the said order of the learned Judge dismissing the application for revocation of leave. We have earlier noticed that the appellant bank made an application for revocation of leave and the said application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. As yet, no appeal has been preferred against the said order of the learned Judge dismissing the application for revocation of leave. Though there is a denial of the averments made in the said paragraphs of the plaint, we are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, a mere denial of the said averments will give rise to a triable issue which could not be decided by the learned Trial Judge in the said proceeding. In any event, it is well settled that the debtor has to find the creditor and must make payment at the creditor's place of residence or business. The facts and circumstances of the case also go to establish that the guarantee was partly executed in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in this contention of Mr. Bachawat. ( 16 ) MR. Bachawat in course of his submission had also made a faint argument that the suit will not be competent in the absence of the principal borrower. In view of the nature of the guarantee, we are of the opinion that the suit against the bank is perfectly competent and under the guarantee the bank is liable as the principal debtor to the plaintiff. ( 17 ) IN the premises aforesaid, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. ( 18 ) CROSS-OBJECTION has been preferred by the plaintiff-respondent with regard to the rate of interest. The learned Trial Judge has awarded the said amount of interest in exercise of her discretion. We are not inclined to interfere with the said order of learned Trial Judge and the said cross-objection, therefore, fails. ( 19 ) THE operation of the order will remain stayed for four weeks. M. M. Dutt, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.