JUDGMENT - Jhunjhunuwala S.M., J.:—In the suit filed for declaration that the 1st Defendants are not entitled to invoke the bank guarantees and/or call the encashment thereof, the present Notice of Motion has been taken out for interlocutory reliefs to restrain the 1st Defendants, their servants, agents and subordinates by an order of injunction of this Court from in any manner invoking the bank guarantees in question and from calling payments thereunder in any manner whatsoever and also to restrain the 2nd defendants from in any manner making payment of the bank guarantees in question to the 1st defendants or to anybody else on their behalf. 2. The plaintiffs carry on business of manufacturing pressure vacuum filters. On 18th July, 1988 the plaintiffs had forwarded an offer to the 1st Defendants for manufacture and supply of filters. On 10th March, 1989 a purchase order was placed by the 1st defendants with the plaintiffs on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The terms and conditions included that the total price was Rs. 26 lakhs for 2 Nos. of Drying System and Rs. 13.70 lakhs for 2 Nos. of Filters. It was further provided that the trial runs of Drying System equipment and pressure vacuum filters could be conducted after taking delivery at Hyderabad. So far as terms of payment are concerned, it was provided that 10% advance would be paid along with the order and the balance against delivery and commissioning. On 31st July, 1989 the Plaintiffs addressed a letter to the 1st Defendants suggesting certain changes in the purchase order and forward proforma invoices for 2 Nos. of Dryers and 2 Nos. of Filters along therewith. On 14th October, 1989 the Plaintiffs received a letter from the 1st Defendants in which the 1st Defendants had calculated the costs of equipment, retention deposits and advances paid and it was mentioned in the said letter that the total costs of Filters and Dryers would work at Rs. 47,79,086/- out of which after deducting the advance payments made, the balance payable was Rs. 25,01,100/-. On 17th October, 1989, the plaintiffs forwarded to the 1st defendants bills for balance amount payable after adjusting 40% advance of Rs. 5,50,303/- on account of the first Filter despatched by the plaintiffs to the 1st Defendants. 47,79,086/- out of which after deducting the advance payments made, the balance payable was Rs. 25,01,100/-. On 17th October, 1989, the plaintiffs forwarded to the 1st defendants bills for balance amount payable after adjusting 40% advance of Rs. 5,50,303/- on account of the first Filter despatched by the plaintiffs to the 1st Defendants. Along with the bills, the bank guarantee for performance of the Filter to the extent of 20% of the order value, viz., of a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- was enclosed. The said bank guarantee No. 49/89 dated 20th October, 1989 was issued on behalf of the Plaintiffs by the 2nd defendants in favour of the 1st defendants. On 25th October, 1989, the plaintiffs forwarded the second set of documents for the second Filter despatched to the 1st defendants for balance amount of Rs. 5,50,603/-. Along with the bills, a bank guarantee for performance of the Filter to the extent of 20% of the order value, viz., sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- was enclosed. The said bank guarantee No. 56/89 dated 25th October, 1989 was issued on behalf of the plaintiffs by the 2nd defendants in favour of the 1st defendants. On 15th March, 1990, the Plaintiffs furnished another bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- being 20% costs of Rs. 13 lakhs, the price of drying equipments. On 16th April, 1990, the Plaintiffs despatched the second Drying System to the 1st defendants and the documents in respect thereof were sent through their bankers. On 21st July, 1990, the Plaintiffs addressed a letter to the 1st defendants along therewith the Plaintiffs forwarded bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- being the 20% value of the order for Rs. 13 lakhs. 3. In respect of the said order placed, the plaintiffs have furnished four bank guarantees, copies whereof are annexed and marked as Exhibits J, K, S and AA. On 5th March, 1991 the 1st defendants addressed a letter to the Plaintiffs stating that the Plaintiffs had failed in fulfilling their contractual obligations according to the terms of the said purchase order. In respect of the said order placed, the plaintiffs have furnished four bank guarantees, copies whereof are annexed and marked as Exhibits J, K, S and AA. On 5th March, 1991 the 1st defendants addressed a letter to the Plaintiffs stating that the Plaintiffs had failed in fulfilling their contractual obligations according to the terms of the said purchase order. By the said letter, the 1st Defendants communicated to the Plaintiffs that if the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms of the said purchase order in full, including satisfactory commissioning of the equipment and satisfactory performance thereof within the time stipulated therein, the 1st Defendants would be constrained to take appropriate action in terms of the said purchase order. Apprehending that the 1st Defendants might invoke the said bank guarantees, the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the reliefs as aforesaid. 4. According to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have performed their contractual obligations in terms of the said purchase order whereas according to the 1st Defendants, the Plaintiffs have failed to perform their contractual obligations and in consequence of the breach committed by the Plaintiffs, the 1st Defendants have suffered heavily. As a matter of fact, the 1st Defendants have invoked three out of the said four bank guarantees as according to the 1st Defendants, the 1st Defendants have become entitled to invoke the same. 5. From the copies of the said bank guarantees furnished by the Plaintiffs which are annexed and marked as Exhibits J, K, S and AA to the Plaint, it is evident that the said bank guarantees are unconditional and irrevocable. In each of the said bank guarantees, the 2nd Defendants have undertaken to indemnify the 1st defendants and keep the 1st Defendants indemnified to the extent of the amounts mentioned therein from and against all losses and damages that may be caused to be suffered by the 1st Defendants in relation to the payment required to be made by reason of any default; that the 2nd defendants would pay the amounts mentioned therein on demand to the 1st Defendants and that the decision of the 1st Defendants as to whether default has been committed would be binding on the 2nd Defendants. In nutshell, as aforesaid, each of the bank guarantees is unconditional and irrevocable. 6. In nutshell, as aforesaid, each of the bank guarantees is unconditional and irrevocable. 6. The law as to the contractual obligation under the bank guarantee has been well settled in a catena of cases. Almost all such 6 cases have been considered in the judgment of the Supreme Court in (U.P. Co-op. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.)1, reported in 1988(1) S.C.C. 174 , wherein Sabyasachi Mukherji, J., as he then was, observed: “that in order to restrain the operation either of irrevocable letter of credit or of confirmed letter of credit' or of bank guarantee, there should be serious dispute and there should be good prima facie case of fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties. Otherwise, the very purpose of bank guarantees would be negatived and the fabric of trading operations will get jeopardised. The Bank must honour the bank guarantee free from interference by the Courts. Otherwise, trust in commerce internal and international would be irreparably damaged. It is only in exceptional cases that is to say in case of fraud or in case of irretrievable injustice, the Court should interfere.” If the documentary credits are irrevocable and independent, the bank must pay when demand is made. 7. Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs, has submitted that the concept of fraud in case of bank guarantee is much wider than of deceit. He has further submitted that a party taking advantage of one's own wrong would itself come in the purview of fraud. He has further submitted that the conduct of the 1st defendants right from the beginning virtually amounted to fraud. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mehta has put reliance on the decision of our Court in the case of (Dai-Ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission)2, reported in 1991(4) Bom.C.R. 631 . That was a suit filed for a declaration that the impugned demand made by the 1st defendants therein on the 2nd Defendants therein to make payment under the bank guarantee was fraudulent, void, illegal and of no effect whatsoever. The Plaintiffs in that suit claimed permanent injunction against the 1st Defendants therein from enforcing the bank guarantee against the 2nd Defendants therein. The Plaintiffs in that suit claimed permanent injunction against the 1st Defendants therein from enforcing the bank guarantee against the 2nd Defendants therein. In well considered judgment, Dhanuka, J., in that case has held as under: “It is well-settled that Courts of law are not entitled to interfere with the irrevocable obligations undertaken by the bank under an irrevocable letter of credit or an unconditional bank guarantee except in cases where fraud is proved to the satisfaction of the Court or some other recognised ground of exception available in law or in equity is clearly made out. In large number of decisions delivered by the highest Court of our country it had been held repeatedly that the contract of bank-guarantee is an independent autonomous contract between the bank and the beneficiary and its autonomy is ordinarily not affected by the main contract between the supplier and the purchaser of the goods or the disputes which may arise between them in respect of their rights and obligations under such contract. It has also been held in some cases that this principle of bank-guarantee being an independent or autonomous contract cannot be extended to protect the unscrupulous beneficiary.” The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Co-op. Federation Ltd. (supra) have also been considered in the said case of Dai-Ichi Karkaria P. Ltd. (supra), which principles are as follows: “Commitments of bank must be honoured free from interference by Court. An irrevocable commitment either in the form of confirmed bank guarantee or irrevocable letter of credit whether furnished during course of internal trade or international must be honoured and must be allowed to be honoured irrespective of disputes raised by the party at whose instance the Bank guarantee was furnished. No temporary injunction could be granted to restrain the Bank from performing the bank -guarantee or so as to restrain the beneficiary under the guarantee from invoking the guarantee except in case of fraud or special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice.” 8. Mr. Mehta has strongly relied upon the observations made by Dhanuka, J., while considering the meaning of the word 'fraud'. Accepting the ratio of the judgment in the case of (Dynamic Corporation of America v. Citizens Southern National Bank)3, reported in 356 Fed. Supp. 991, it has been held that the “law of fraud” was not static. Mr. Mehta has strongly relied upon the observations made by Dhanuka, J., while considering the meaning of the word 'fraud'. Accepting the ratio of the judgment in the case of (Dynamic Corporation of America v. Citizens Southern National Bank)3, reported in 356 Fed. Supp. 991, it has been held that the “law of fraud” was not static. “Fraud” had a broader meaning in equity than at law and an intention to defraud or to misrepresent was not a necessary element. As held in the said Dynamic Corporation of America's case, fraud indeed in the sense of a Court of equity properly includes all acts, omissions and concealments, which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. However, in the case of (General Electric Technical Services Co. Inc. v. Ms. Punj Sons P. Ltd.)4, reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1994, the Supreme Court has held that the nature of fraud that the Court talks about is fraud of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction. It is fraud of the beneficiary, not the fraud of somebody else. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case before me, I am not prima facie satisfied that any fraud has been committed by the beneficiary under the said bank guarantees. The present case does not fall within the aforesaid exceptions, that is to say, the case of fraud or case of irretrievable injustice and as such, it warrants no interference by this Court. 10. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. Costs of the Notice of Motion to be costs in the Cause. 11. Issuance of certified copy of minutes expedited. 12. On the application made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the ad interim order granted on 5th April, 1991 to continue for a period of two weeks. Motion dismissed. -----