JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– THE COURT: This is an application for an order as follows:–– "(a) An order of injunction do issue restraining the second defendant, M/s. United Industrial Bank Limited, its servants and or agents to act in terms of the purported Bank guarantee dated 10th August, 1981 executed in favour of State Bank of Hyderabad, the third defendants herein; (b) An injunction do issue restraining the defendants and each one of them and/or their servants and/or agents from taking any steps in terms of the purported Bank guarantee dated 10th August 1981, executed by the said Messrs. United Industrial Bank Limited, the second defendant in favour of the third defendant, M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad." Upon such application being made ex parte, the Court passed an order of status quo which was later continued till the disposal of this application. This case arises out of the following facts :–– 2. There was an agreement between the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant No. 1 whereby the plaintiff undertook to carry out certain fabrication works for the first defendant in respect of diverse steel materials. The said agreement, inter alia, provides that the plaintiff would collect the raw materials from the stockyard of Steel Authority of India Ltd and that the plaintiff would furnish necessary bank guarantee for securing the said raw materials supplied by the first defendant. It appears that at the relevant time the raw materials were lying pledged and/or hypothecated and/or charged to the State Bank of Hyderabad being the defendant No. 3 and accordingly a bank guarantee was given by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 3. The relevant clause provides as follows :–– "We hereby undertake and agree to pay to State Bank of Hyderabad on demand and without demur, without any objection or consideration at any time the tenor and/or subsistency of this guarantee irrespective of the fact that Messrs. Surendra Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. has committed any default of any of the terms and conditions of their contract with Messrs Technicon. We, United Industrial Bank Ltd., further agreed that the State Bank of Hyderabad shall be the sole judge as to whether a loss has been suffered resulting in the invocation of the Guarantee." Thereafter, this bank guarantee was invoked by a letter dated 4th March, 1983 and letters subsequently written. We, United Industrial Bank Ltd., further agreed that the State Bank of Hyderabad shall be the sole judge as to whether a loss has been suffered resulting in the invocation of the Guarantee." Thereafter, this bank guarantee was invoked by a letter dated 4th March, 1983 and letters subsequently written. Thereafter, this suit was filed restraining the defendants from enforcing the said bank guarantee and this application was made. 3. Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioner has raised various points before me. His main challenge was against the bank guarantee itself. He has submitted that it does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Contract Act. He has also submitted that in any event at present the materials worth Rs. 65,000/- only are held by his client and, therefore, the bank guarantee should be reduced. He has further raised the question of failure and/or default of the terms and conditions of the contract. He has also submitted that there is no proper invocation of Bank guarantee. 4. Mr. Roy, appearing for defendant No.1 and Mr. Mitter appearing for defendant No.3 have disputed the contentions of Mr. Sen. They have in any event submitted that the Court should not grant any such Prayer or issue any such order in view of the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. In the case or (1) United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1426 it was a case of letter of credit. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the same consideration would apply in respect of a bank guarantee. It was pointed out that in view of the banker's obligation under an irrevocable letter of credit to pay, a buyer-customer cannot instruct him not to pay. It was further pointed out that the Courts shall refrain from granting injunction to restrain the performance of the contractual obligations arising out of a letter of credit or bank guarantee between one bank another. It was pointed out that if such temporary injunctions were to be granted in a transaction between a banker and a banker restraining a bank from recalling the amount due when payment is made under reserve to another bank or in terms of the letter of credit or credit executed by it, the whole banking system in the country would fail. It was pointed out that it is only in exceptional cases that the Courts will interfere with the machinery of irrevocable obligations assumed by the banks. It was stated that they are the life-blood of international commerce. The machinery and commitments of banks are on a different level. They must be allowed to be honoured free from interference by the Courts. Otherwise, trust in international commerce could be irreparably damaged. It was further pointed out that no such order of injunction could be passed unless the plaintiffs established that they had a prima facie case or they would be put to an irreparable loss unless an interim injunction was granted. 5. This decision was followed by a judgment of a single judge of this Court and also a Division Bench of this Court. In the case of (2) Road Machines (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Projects and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 91, it was pointed out by a single judge of this Court that it was not necessary that a bank guarantee should be invoked in an exact and punctilious manner setting out the entire case of the beneficiary under the guarantee in the same way as setting out a cause of action in a plaint. A bank guarantee is a commercial document and is neither a statutory notice nor a pleading in a legal proceeding. It may be invoked in a commercial manner. In that case also the said guarantee was unconditional and irrevocable and recorded that the decision of the beneficiary as to the liability of the bank under the guarantee would be final and binding on the bank. It was pointed out further that it was not necessary that in the letter invoking the guarantee the beneficiary is required to specifically state that the vender had failed to fulfil its obligations under the contract. 6. In the case of (3) B. S. Anjla Company Private Ltd. v. Kaluram Mahadeo Prosad & Ors., reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 106 a Division Bench of this Court had to deal with irrevocable letter of credit. 6. In the case of (3) B. S. Anjla Company Private Ltd. v. Kaluram Mahadeo Prosad & Ors., reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 106 a Division Bench of this Court had to deal with irrevocable letter of credit. It was pointed out therein that the contractual relationship between the issuing bank and the buyer is defined by the terms of the agreement between them under which the letter opening the credit is issued and its between the seller and the banker, the issue of the credit duly notified to the seller creates a new contractual nexus and renders the banker directly liable to the seller to pay the purchase price or to accept the hill of exchange upon tender of the documents. The banker was not entitled to rely upon the terms of the contract between the buyer and the seller which might permit the buyer to reject the goods or to refund payment for them and conversely the buyer was not entitled to an injunction restraining the seller from dealing with the letter of credit if the goods were defective. It was pointed out that a letter of credit sometimes resembled and was analogous to a contract of guarantee. The bank which gave a performance guarantee was bound to honour that guarantee according to its terms. On the question of injunction also it was pointed out that unless the plaintiffs established that they had the prima facie case, no order of injunction could be granted. It was further pointed out that the Courts usually refrain from granting any injunction in this kind of matter. 7. It was further pointed out that once a letter of credit is established there is a contract between the issuing bank and the seller. The buyer has no right to intervene. If the bank pays in violation of the letter of credit, then the buyer can always sue the bank for any damages or breach of his contract. If, on the other hand, there are certain other claims of the buyers against the seller than the buyers can file a suit for recovery of such damages and money from the seller. But as between the seller and the issuing bank the injunction should not be granted. 8. The present legal position in respect of such guarantee is made quite clear by the aforesaid decisions. But as between the seller and the issuing bank the injunction should not be granted. 8. The present legal position in respect of such guarantee is made quite clear by the aforesaid decisions. Here I am prima facie satisfied that the enforcement is in terms of the guarantee. No prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff. It is also to be pointed out that on the basis of this bank guarantee the plaintiff has obtained release of goods and taken advantage of the same. At the present stage it is a matter of discretion for this Court and having regard to the conduct on the part of the petitioner the Court should be hesitant in invoking its discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Further, there is no case of irreparable damage in case an order is not passed. The question of reduction of the sum involved cannot and does not arise that would amount to invoking the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. 9. I ought to point out that though the United Industrial Bank, which is a party and which is liable to pay this money, has been made party defendant herein, this defendant has not participated in this proceeding by either filing any affidavit or appearing during the hearing of this application. They are not arising any objection to make any payment in compliance with this bank guarantee as sought to be enforced by the defendant No. 3. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the aforesaid decisions, I reject the contentions made in support of this petition and I dismiss this application with costs. All interim orders are vacated. Stay of operation of this order as prayed for is rejected.