JUDGMENT - PENDSE M.L., J.:—Oil and Natural Gas Commission-original defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal to challenge correctness of order dated January 29, 1991 passed by learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 3270 of 1989 restraining defendant No. 1 by injunction from in any manner invoking Bank guarantee No. 6/78/567 and demanding any amount under the guarantee from Bank of India-defendant No. 2. The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are as follows : Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and carries on business of manufacture of speciality chemicals, including Pour Point Depressant (P.P.D.). The Company imports raw materials for the purpose of manufacture of Pout Pint Depressant (P.P.D.). The Government of India with a view to promote exports and to bring about import substitution had from time to time introduced several measures including provisions for duty import of raw materials and for grant of drawbacks of customs and excise duty. In exercise of powers conferred under section 75 of the Customs Act, the Central Government granted drawback of duties of customs and excise on imported and indigenous material used for manufacturer of goods exported from India. The scheme provided grant of cash compensatory support and supplementary cash assistance in lieu of duty drawback. On July 20, 1983, the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 25 of the Customs Act issued notification providing that the material supplied by Indian manufactures to Oil and Natural Gas Commission should be treated as deemed exports. The result of the notification was that the supplier of goods to Oil and Natural Gas Commission was entitled to cash compensatory support, import replenishment, supplementary cash assistance and additional cash compensatory support. The company was supplying P.P.D. to Oil and Natural Gas Commission from year 1980-81 onwards and it is the claim of the company that the Company was the pointer in manufacture of PPD and supply of it to oil and Natural Gas Commission. P.P.D. is a critical material necessary for smooth functioning of oil drilling. 2. In April 1983, Oil and Natural Gas Commission flatted a tender for requirement of 7500 MT of P.P.D. and the delivery of which was to commence by January 15, 1984. P.P.D. is a critical material necessary for smooth functioning of oil drilling. 2. In April 1983, Oil and Natural Gas Commission flatted a tender for requirement of 7500 MT of P.P.D. and the delivery of which was to commence by January 15, 1984. At the time of floating of tender, the supplies to Oil and Natural Gas Commission did not qualify as deemed exports but the notification of the Central Government was on the anvil. In response to the tender notice the Company submitted quotation on June 29, 1983 offering to supply 3600 MT of P.P.D. The company had quoted two separate prices, viz. (a) normal or domestic prices, and (b) export prices. The normal or domestic prices were inclusive of duties paid by the company for import of raw materials in manufacture of P.P.D., while the export prices were exclusive of such amount of duties and consequently the export price was less than the domestic price. Within a short time from the company submitting the quotation, the Central Government issued the notification treating supplies to Oil and Natural Gas Commission as deemed exports. Pursuant to the quotations submitted by the company, correspondence ensued between the company and Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The company was seeking domestic price for supply of P.P.D. unless the benefit of duty fee import was made available. On October 10, 1983, Oil and Natural Gas Commission addressed a telex indent informing the Company to urgently supply 1500 M.T. of P.P.D. at rate of 250/300 per month at a price of Rs. 29,000/- per M.T. This price was the export price as quoted by the Company. The Company again entered into correspondence claiming that though the Central Government had issued notification treating supplies to Oil and Natural Gas Commission as deemed exports, the Government had not announced the detailed export procedure and as and when the duty drawback would be available. The Company asserted that unless it is clear as to when and how the Company would be entitled to refund of duties paid, it would not be possible for the Company to make supplies of P.P.D. manufacture from the raw material imported at export price. A large correspondent was addressed by the Company to Oil and Natural Gas Commission and meeting of the representatives of the Company and Oil and Natural Gas Commission was held. A large correspondent was addressed by the Company to Oil and Natural Gas Commission and meeting of the representatives of the Company and Oil and Natural Gas Commission was held. Oil and Natural Gas Commission was in urgent need of supply of P.P.D. and made it clear to the Company that supply must start forthwith. In the month of November 1983, the Company supplied 300 M.T. of P.P.D. and thereafter on December 12, 1983 formal order for supply of P.P.D. material was handed over to the Company. The formal order recites that the contract or quotation was in accordance with quotation submitted on June 29, 1983 and subsequent correspondence and negotiations which were held in meeting dated October 22, 1983. The formal order sets out that the Company was to supply 1500 M.T. of P.P.D. at the rate of Rs. 30, 500/- per M. T. which is deemed export rate. The total amount in respect of supply was settled at Rs. 4,57,50,000/-. The note annexed to the formal order sets out that the supplies of the products would be treated as deemed export and the customs duty and excise duty is not payable by Oil and Natural Gas Commission as per deemed export policy notification dated September 5, 1983. In pursuance of the order placed by Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the company supplied the balance 1200 MT of P.P.D. by March 23, 1984. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the export rate, the payment was made by Oil and Natural Gas Commission on April 2, 1982 save and except a sum of Rs. 4,78,892.70 which was paid on June 4, 1984. 3. In pursuance of the notification issued by Central Government, the company had made requisite applications fro refund of duties paid in respect of import of raw materials which were used for manufacture of P.P.D. and which were ultimately supplied to Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The company had imported raw material prior to the date of publication of notification providing for deemed export in respect of supplies made to Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The company had imported raw material prior to the date of publication of notification providing for deemed export in respect of supplies made to Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The Company had sought refund from the Central Government and the applications had remained pending till the date of supply of the entire quantity of P.P.D. It seems that the Central Government was not accepting the claim made by the company for refund of the amount and several representations were made by the company and some of which were supported by Oil and Natural Gas Commission. While these representations were pending, the company informed Oil and Natural Gas Commission that the material was supplied at the export rate and that has caused loss to the Company because the refund amount which was to the tune of Rs. 1.48 crores was not received from the Government for considerable length of time. The company claimed that in case the refund was not possible, then the company was entitled to the domestic rate and the sum of Rs. 1.48 crores is payable by Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The claim made by the company was not acceptable to Oil and Natural Gas Commission but possibly because of long relationship in respect of the commercial transaction, ultimately it was decided that Oil and Natural Gas Commission will advance a sum of Rs. 1.48 crores to the company to overcome the immediate financial difficulty. The amount was to be advanced on company furnishing an unconditional and on demand Bank guarantee to return the amount on obtaining refund from the Central Government or within a period of six months, whichever event occurs first. In pursuance of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1.48 crores was paid over by Oil and Natural Gas Commission to the Company between May 26, 1984 and July 6, 1984 in pursuance of Bank guarantee furnished by Bank of India-defendant No. 2 who were the Bankers of the plaintiff Company. 4. The Bank Guarantee dated 4th May, 1984 sets out that at the request of the company Oil and Natural Gas Commission had agreed to make ad hoc payments upto an amount not exceeding Rs. 4. The Bank Guarantee dated 4th May, 1984 sets out that at the request of the company Oil and Natural Gas Commission had agreed to make ad hoc payments upto an amount not exceeding Rs. 1.50 crores provided that the Company shall refund the aforesaid ad hoc payments within 10 days from the date the Company receives refund of the customs duty on the imported raw material or within six months from the date of guarantee, whichever is earlier. The Bank guarantee clearly recites that the Bank of India irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed as a prime obliger to make payment not exceeding Rs. 1.50 crores without any demur, and merely on demand from Oil and Natural Gas Commission stating that the Company had failed to repay the amount or part thereof. The company failed to secure refund from Central Government and all representations ended in failure. The company did not adopt any legal proceedings against Central Government in respect of refund of the duties but persisted in making more and more representations. In the meanwhile, at the expiry of period of six months from the date of Bank guarantee, Oil and Natural Gas Commission was desirous of enforcing Bank guarantee to secure back the amount of Rs. 1.48 crores which was lifted by the Company. The Company made representation to Oil and Natural Gas Commission for deferring enforcement of Bank guarantee and in pursuance thereof as many as on 19 occasions Oil and Natural Gas Commission agreed to defer enforcement of Bank guarantee on condition that the company extended operation of Bank guarantee for further period. The first extension was upto September 30, 1985 while the last extension which was 19th in number was upto December 31, 1989, Oil and Natural Gas Commission realised that the company had no desire to return the amount and was possibly holding on to the amount on the ground that the Central Government had wrongly rejected the refund and, therefore, the Company is not bound to return the amount to Oil and Natural Gas Commission which is a Corporation set up by the Government. Realising that the Company had retained the amount of Rs. Realising that the Company had retained the amount of Rs. 1.48 crores for more than five years, and without liability to pay any interest thereon, ultimately, Oil and Natural Gas Commission served notice of demand dated December 16, 1989 upon Bank of India for payment of the amount due under the guarantee. 5. The action of Oil and Natural Gas Commission on enforce the Bank guarantee gave rise to the company filing Suit No. 3891 of 1989 on December 27, 1989 on the Original Side of this Court. The reliefs sought were a declaration that the demand made by Oil and Natural Gas Commission on Bank of India to make payment under the Bank guarantee is void, illegal and of no effect. The company sought a permanent injunction restraining Oil and Natural Gas Commission from invoking Bank guarantee or demanding or recovering any amount from Bank of India on the basis of the guarantee. The plaint in paragraph 20 sets out that the Company had incurred expenses of about Rs. 1.07 crores towards payment of customs duty on raw materials imported for supply of P.P.D. to Oil and Natural Gas Commission and thereby was saddled with huge liability and the financial viability of the company was in jeopardy. The company claims that an unfair advantage and bargaining position made the company to accede to the demands of Oil and Natural Gas Commission to furnish a Bank guarantee. The Company also claimed that though the company was reluctant to supply P.P.D. at export price rate, the company had no option but to make supplies on the terms arbitrarily imposed by Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The Company claimed that Oil and Natural Gas Commission had acted fraudulently in securing supply of P.P.D. at export price rate and thereafter used coercion to compel the company to furnish Bank guarantee which, inter alia, provided that amount of Rs. 1.48 crores will be payable on demand after expiry of six months from the date of issuance of Bank guarantee. After institution of the suit, the Company took out Notice of Motion No. 3270 of 1989 for obtaining interim relief pending the disposal of the suit. The interim relief sought was restraining Oil and Natural Gas Commission from demanding the amount due under the Bank guarantee from Bank of India. After institution of the suit, the Company took out Notice of Motion No. 3270 of 1989 for obtaining interim relief pending the disposal of the suit. The interim relief sought was restraining Oil and Natural Gas Commission from demanding the amount due under the Bank guarantee from Bank of India. The Notice of Motion was resisted by Oil and Natural Gas Commission by filing affidavit and pointing out that the claim that the agreement to supply P.P.D. was obtained by Oil and Natural Gas Commission by fraudulent method is nothing short of wild imagination. Oil and Natural Gas Commission claimed that the Company had supplied P.P.D. at export price rate with the expectation that the customs duty paid will be refundable in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government. Oil and Natural Gas Commission further claimed that to enable the company to tide over immediate financial crunch, Oil and Natural Gas Commission advanced the amount but after obtaining the Bank guarantee, and the mere fact that the company was unable to secure refund from Central Government cannot entitle the company was unable to decline to repay the amount and thereafter raise false contentions that the original agreement to supply was obtained by fraud or the Bank guarantee was furnished under coercion. Oil and Natural Gas Commission claimed that the Bank guarantee furnished was unconditional and on demand and being a commercial transaction between a registered company and the Corporation, it is not permissible to restrain Oil and Natural Gas Commission to restrain Oil and Natural Gas Commission from enforcing the Bank guarantee. The trial Judge, by impugned order which is quite long, observed that the conduct of Oil and Natural Gas Commission is blameworthy is not paying domestic price to the company in spite of a concluded and binding commitment. The trial Judge observed that Oil and Natural Gas Commission induced the company to invest about Rs. 2½ crores with speed and thereafter coerced the Company to renegotiate the contract coupled with threat not to perform the original contract and thereby placed the Company in a great jeopardy of adverse financial consequences affecting economic viability of the Company. The trial Judge further held that Oil and Natural Gas Commission with held Rs. 2½ crores with speed and thereafter coerced the Company to renegotiate the contract coupled with threat not to perform the original contract and thereby placed the Company in a great jeopardy of adverse financial consequences affecting economic viability of the Company. The trial Judge further held that Oil and Natural Gas Commission with held Rs. 1.48 crores without any justification and ultimately coerced and duressed the Company to furnish Bank guarantee with its stipulation that the amount will be repayable at the expiry of six months on demand. The trial Judge further held that 19 extensions of Bank guarantee were given by the Company out of fear and apprehension. The trial Judge was fully conscious of the fact that there was lacuna in the plaint filed by the Company as adequate particulars of fraud, coercion or duress were not set out but bypassed the said fatal defects by observing that the lacuna is curable and in spite of lacuna the conscience of the Court is shocked by taking in view the overall situation. After recording all these findings in favour of the Company, the trial Judge had doubt as to whether Oil and Natural Gas Commission operated illegitimate pressure on the Company while obtaining extensions of Bank guarantee. The trial Judge, therefore, felt that the Company is entitled to grant of interim relief but on condition of deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the Court by installments. According to the trial Judge, the relief granted to the Company is on the basis on special equities of the situation. The order of the trial Judge is reported in (Dai-ichi Karkaria Private Ltd. v. Oil Natural Gas Commission)1, 1991(4) Bom.C.R. 631 and is under challenge. 6. We do not propose to refer to each and every reason and large number of observations made by the trial Judge in a long drawn order as the short issue which requires determination is whether Oil and Natural Gas Commission can be restrained from enforcing Bank guarantee. The principles in respect of grant of injunction to restrain enforcement of Bank guarantee are well settled by catena of decisions and it would be suffice if reference is made to three decisions of the Supreme Court. The principles in respect of grant of injunction to restrain enforcement of Bank guarantee are well settled by catena of decisions and it would be suffice if reference is made to three decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1426, (United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and others)2, observed that the Bank issuing Bank guarantee is not concerned with the underlined contract between the buyer and seller and the duties of Bank are created by the document itself. The Bank's obligation is to make payment in accordance with terms of the document and the Bank honour the guarantee. The Supreme Court then observed : “The courts usually refrain from granting injunction to restrain the performance of the contractual obligations arising out of letter of credit or a bank guarantee between one bank and another. 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 guarantee or credit executed by it, the whole banking system in the country would fail. It is only in exceptional cases that the courts will interfere with the machinery of irrevocable obligations assumed by banks. 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.” The decision was reiterated in judgment reported in 1988(1) Supreme Court Cases 174, (U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers)3. The latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in J.T. 1993(6) S.C. 189, (Svenska Handelsbanken v. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome and others)4, refers to the earlier two decisions with approval. Mr. Justice Yogeshwar Dayal, speaking for the Bench, observed that enforcement of Bank guarantees cannot be interfered with unless there is a fraud and irretrievable injustice and mere irretrievable injustice without prima facie fraud is of no consequence. Shri Cooper, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the company, very fairly submitted that principles in respect of grant of injunction restraining the holder of Bank guarantee from enforcing the same are well settled and cannot be debated. Shri Cooper, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the company, very fairly submitted that principles in respect of grant of injunction restraining the holder of Bank guarantee from enforcing the same are well settled and cannot be debated. Shri Cooper with his usual fairness conceded that merely because the Central Government had declined to refund the duties paid by the company, that cannot entitle the company to claim that the amount is not repayable to Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The short contention urged by Shri Cooper to support the order passed by the trial Judge is that Oil and Natural Gas Commission had played fraud in securing supply of 1,500 MT of P.P.D. by payment of export price rate although there was a concluded commitment to pay the domestic price unless the company is able to secure refund. Shri Cooper also submitted that the fraud commenced at the time of supply of P.P.D. was perpetuated and the Bank guarantee was secured under coercion realising that the company could not resist the terms of the Bank guarantee in view of stringent financial condition. The short question, therefore, which requires answer is whether the Company has made out even a prima facie case of fraud and coercion to seek interim relief. 7. As mentioned hereinabove, the plaint does not furnish any particulars about the alleged fraud or coercion save and except claiming in paragraph 17 that the company had agreed to supply P.P.D. at the domestic/normal price an don this basis, the company had supplied to Oil and Natural Gas Commission an aggregate quantity of 314.820 M.T. of P.P.D. out of the contract quantity of 1500 M.T. by November 1983. In paragraph 20, the company claimed that the financial viability of the company was in jeopardy and Oil and Natural Gas Commission obtained unfair advantage and bargaining position and compelled the company to accede to the demand to furnish Bank guarantee. The averments, in our judgment, are totally insufficient to make out a case of fraud or coercion. It hardly requires to be stated that it is mandatory to furnish particulars when serious charge of fraud and coercion is made against a Corporation by a registered company in respect of a commercial transaction. The averments, in our judgment, are totally insufficient to make out a case of fraud or coercion. It hardly requires to be stated that it is mandatory to furnish particulars when serious charge of fraud and coercion is made against a Corporation by a registered company in respect of a commercial transaction. Fraud and coercion should not be casually inferred from the alleged equitable consideration, apart from the fact that in the present case there is no equity whatsoever in favour of the company. Even the trial Judge realised the deficiency in the plaint but proceeded to overlook it by observing that the lacuna can be cured at a later stage. It is not permissible to assume that the party must have played fraud in entering into an agreement for supply of P.P.D. and thereafter coerce the company to furnish Bank guarantee in absence of pleadings. Apart from this consideration in our judgment, from the facts set out hereinabove, it is impossible even prima facie to come to the conclusion that Oil and Natural Gas Commission was guilty of playing any fraud on the company to secure an agreement or had coerced the company to furnish Bank guarantee. Shri Cooper referred to large number of letters addressed by the company to Oil and Natural Gas Commission after the tender was submitted by the Company for supply of 1,500 M.T. of P.P.D. The learned Counsel submitted that the Company was insisting that the supply will be made in accordance with domestic price of Rs. 40.50 per ton and not at the rate of Rs. 29/- per M.T. which is the export price rate. The learned Counsel urged that the letters addressed by Oil and Natural Gas Commission do indicate that the claim of the Company for domestic supply rate was accepted in view of the urgent need of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. It was contended that Oil and Natural Gas Commission was making repeated pleas for immediate supply of P.P.D. and even before the formal order dated December 12, 1983 was received by the company, 300 M.T. of P.P.D. was supplied. The learned Counsel submitted that the invoices under which the supply was made clearly set out that the price payable is domestic price and Oil and Natural Gas Commission received the supply under invoices and thereby had accepted the claim of the company. The learned Counsel submitted that the invoices under which the supply was made clearly set out that the price payable is domestic price and Oil and Natural Gas Commission received the supply under invoices and thereby had accepted the claim of the company. Shri Cooper submitted that Oil and Natural Gas Commission never protested against the price quoted in the invoices and also to repeated demands made by the company in the correspondence and, therefore, it must be concluded that Oil and Natural Gas Commission had made a firm commitment to make payment as per the domestic price. It was urged that the company was induced to part with 300 M.T. of P.P.D. by November 1983 and the subsequent conduct of Oil and Natural Gas commission leaves no manner of doubt that there was no intention to make payment as per domestic price. The learned Counsel submitted that after the formal order was received on December 17, 1983, the company immediately addressed letter pointing out that the formal order refers to the export price rate and that is not acceptable to the company and the company had made the earlier supply on the basis of domestic price rate. Shri Cooper submitted that the Company was compelled to supply the balance 1,200 M.T. even though Oil and Natural Gas Commission declined to alter or modify the formal order by providing for domestic price rate and this, according to the learned Counsel, is a fraudulent conduct on the part of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The argument appealed to the trial Judge but, we are afraid, it is impossible to find any merit in the contention. The transaction between the parties is purely commercial an even assuming that there was a commitment on the part of Oil and Natural Gas Commission to pay domestic price, while receiving supply of 300 M.T. of P.P.D. in November 1983, it is difficult to appreciate why the Company continued to supply P.P.D. even after receipt of formal order. The transaction between the parties is purely commercial an even assuming that there was a commitment on the part of Oil and Natural Gas Commission to pay domestic price, while receiving supply of 300 M.T. of P.P.D. in November 1983, it is difficult to appreciate why the Company continued to supply P.P.D. even after receipt of formal order. The Company was fully conscious on the receipt of formal order dated December 12, 1983 that Oil and Natural Gas Commission is not ready and willing to pay anything more than export price and in spite of that knowledge the Company went o to supply the balance quantity of P.P.D. In case, the Company felt that Oil and Natural Gas Commission was guilty of breach of contract, then the remedy was to claim damages from Oil and Natural Gas Commission and not to supply the balance quantity and receive payment in accordance with export price rate. In our judgment, the contention that Oil and Natural Gas Commission was guilty of fraudulent conduct in compelling the Company to supply P.P.D. is nothing but imaginary and an effort to come out of the obligation. 8. The contention that the Bank guarantee was secured in continuation of fraud committed earlier is impossible to accede. The supply was completed by March 23, 1984 and it is not in dispute that the entire price of Rs. 4,57,50,000/- was paid to the Company by April 2, 1984 except sum of Rs. 4,78,892.70/- which was paid on June 4, 1984. At that time, both the Company and Oil and Natural Gas Commission were hopeful that the Company would be able to secure refund of customs duty paid at the time of import of raw material required for manufacture of P.P.D. The applications for refund and large number of representations made to the Central Government were not disposed of for considerable period. The Company was regular supplier of P.P.D. to Oil and Natural Gas Commission and had transactions from year 1980 onwards. The Company had paid about Rs. 1,48 crores towards duty and as demand for refund from the Central Government had remained pending, the Company was feeling a pinch and suggested that Oil and Natural Gas Commission should come to the rescue. Thereupon Oil and Natural Gas Commission agreed to pay the said sum to the Company but on condition of furnishing Bank guarantee. 1,48 crores towards duty and as demand for refund from the Central Government had remained pending, the Company was feeling a pinch and suggested that Oil and Natural Gas Commission should come to the rescue. Thereupon Oil and Natural Gas Commission agreed to pay the said sum to the Company but on condition of furnishing Bank guarantee. The amount was paid and Bank guarantee was furnished on May 4, 1984 and it surpasses our imagination as to how the Company could ever claim that Oil and Natural Gas Commission coerced the Company to furnish Bank guarantee. Shri Cooper submitted that as refund was not made by the Central Government, the amount was due and payable to the Company and Oil and Natural Gas Commission did not do any favour. The submission is without any merit. The Company was not bound to make any payment because for formal order specifically provided that the price would be in accordance with export rate. In case the Company had a different claim, then the Company could have only resorted to filing of an action to recover the amount. It is, therefore, obvious that the Company took advantage by obtaining sum of Rs. 1.48 crores by furnishing Bank guarantee on May 4, 1984. The Bank guarantee does not provide for payment of any interest and the understanding of both the parties was that either the Company will get the refund within six months or the Company shall repay the amount at the end of six months. After realising that the Central Government is not acceding to the claim of refund of duty, the Company turned round and decided not to repay the amount by raising specious pleas of fraud and coercion. We are unable to find any prime facie case to sustain the contention of the Company that the Bank guarantee furnished suffers from the vice of fraud and coercion. The finding of the trial Judge is clearly unsustainable and is required to be set aside. 9. The trial Judge referred to additional ground of economic duress relied upon by Company. The contention that the concept of economic coercion or duress could not be applied to a business transaction was turned down with the observation that the submission ignores the development of law and modern trends. 9. The trial Judge referred to additional ground of economic duress relied upon by Company. The contention that the concept of economic coercion or duress could not be applied to a business transaction was turned down with the observation that the submission ignores the development of law and modern trends. The trial Judge overlooked that mere commercial pressure is never sufficient to vitiate the agreements between the parties on the ground of economic duress. The Privy Council in the case reported in 1980 Appeal Cases 614 (Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long)5, restrained from embarking upon an enquiry as to whether English law recognizes a category of duress known as economic duress. The trial Judge observed that the concept of economic duress is available. We have reservation about the observation and the conclusion of the trial Judge on this count, but it is not necessary to examine the question in greater detail because on the facts and circumstances of the case, in our judgment, there is no case whatsoever even to complain about economic duress. The observations and the conclusions recorded by the trial Judge on this count are, therefore, set aside as uncalled for. In our judgment, the trial Judge was in error in holding that a concluded and binding commitment was made by Oil and Natural Gas Commission to pay domestic price and Oil and Natural Gas Commission coerced the Company to renegotiate the contract on realisation that the Company was placed in great jeopardy of adverse financial consequences. We also do not share the finding of the trial Judge that the strong prima facie case is made out by the Company that the Bank guarantee was executed under coercion and duress. In our judgment, the Company had failed to make out any prima facie case of fraud, coercion and duress and the trial Judge was in error in referring to the alleged special equities of the situation to grant interim relief. In our judgment, the Bank guarantee being unconditional and on demand is required to be honoured by Bank of India and Oil and Natural Gas Commission cannot be restrained from enforcing the same. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order dated January 29, 1991 passed by learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 3270 of 1989 is set aside and Notice of Motion is dismissed. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order dated January 29, 1991 passed by learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 3270 of 1989 is set aside and Notice of Motion is dismissed. Respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the appellants throughout. After the appellants receive the amount claimed under Bank guarantee from Bank of India, the plaintiff will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court in pursuance of the order of the trial Judge. At this stage, Shri Mody applies for stay of the order. Prayer refused. Appeal allowed. -----