RUMA PAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 11-06-98 inter alia restraining the appellant Bank from enforcing two Bills of Exchange. The order is noted in detail subsequently. ( 2 ) THE appellant is a nationalised Bank. It had sanctioned credit facilities to the respondent No. 2, Ganapati Export Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ganapati) from its office at Nariman Point, Bombay subject to a limit of Rs. 40 Crores. The facility granted was a packing credit facility to enable Ganapati to export rice to the respondent No. 1 (referred to as Euro) in Singapore. Several documents were executed by Ganapathi on 8th July, 1994 in connection with this advance including deeds of hypothecation of moveable property and stocks, and a promissory note. An agreement for bills purchased was also executed by Ganapati. ( 3 ) THE terms of the bills purchased agreement which are relevant for the purposes of this appeal provided as follows : "in consideration of your collecting and/or discounting and/or purchasing or agreeing to collect, discount and/or purchase all cheques, bills, hundies and other instruments. . . . . . . . . I/we beg to tender herewith my/our joint and several pro-note for Rs. 45,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Crores only) as cover for the arrangement. 11. I/we further agree that -i) in consideration of your making a provisional advance of Rs. . . . . . . . . I/we beg to tender herewith my/our joint and several pro-note for Rs. 45,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Crores only) as cover for the arrangement. 11. I/we further agree that -i) in consideration of your making a provisional advance of Rs. 45,00,00,000/- against the foreign bills for collection expressed to be made payable in foreign currency tendered from time to time the bills will be drawn by me/us in favour of yourself naming yourself as payee for the due and valid consideration and such advances shall be at the sole discretion of yourself;ii) in respect of money lent and advanced or agreed to be lent and advanced, it is agreed that you being a holder for value will be entitled to appropriate the proceeds of the bills towards the provisional advances made by you to me/us as hereinabove mentioned;iii) you, on converting foreign currency amount to Indian Rupees either on realisation or at any point of time, will pay over to or recover from me/us the difference in the rupee amount i. e. the difference between the rupee amount advanced and the rupee equivalent arrived at, while converting foreign currency into Indian Rupee currency after deducting the costs and expenses incurred by the Bank in respect thereof and the moneys which shall then be owing on the securities of these presents. " . ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the advances were made by the appellant to Ganapati and the rice procured and shipped by Ganapati to Euro in Singapore. Invoices were raised by Ganapati on Euro and the shipping documents were sent by the Appellant-Bank to Euro' banker at Singapore viz. The Development Bank of Singapore 2 (DBS for short) for negotiation. ( 5 ) TWO Bills of Exchange both dated 30-12-95 were executed by Ganapati as drawer on Euro as the drawee and the appellant-Bank as the payee. Euro accepted each Bill of Exchange on 10th January 1996. ( 6 ) THE language of both bills is substantially identical except that one was for the sum of US $ 577005. 00 and the other for US $ 585000. 00. It would be, therefore, sufficient to set out the language of one of the Bills of Exchange which is as under : "exchange FOR US $ 577005. ( 6 ) THE language of both bills is substantially identical except that one was for the sum of US $ 577005. 00 and the other for US $ 585000. 00. It would be, therefore, sufficient to set out the language of one of the Bills of Exchange which is as under : "exchange FOR US $ 577005. 00 D/a FOR 90 DAYSAT 90 DAYS FROM SIGHT, PAY TO THE ORDER OF INDIAN BANK, MITTAL TOWER, 8 WING NARIMAN POINT, BOMBAY-400021 THE SUM OF US DOLLARS FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE ONLY FOR VALUE RECEIVED AGAINST FOR INVOICE NO. 2el/8/116/95-96, DATED 39-12-95 (SIC 30-12-95 ). GANAPATI EXPORTS LIMITEDSD/-Authorised Signatoryto : EURO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD. 151 CHIN SWEE ROAD109-08, MANHATTAN HOUSESINGAPORE-169876euro INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD. SD/-Authorised Signatory" . ( 7 ) AGAINST Euro' acceptance of the Bills of exchange the DBS, Euro' bank at Singapore, released the documents to Euro. There is no dispute that in the meanwhile the appellant-Bank upon maturity of the two Bills of Exchange presented the same to DBS for payment. Euro did not pay. By several letters and facsimile messages, the appellant-Bank demanded payment. DBS confirmed that the Bills of Exchange had been duly accepted by Euro on 10-1-96 and the documents were delivered against their acceptance. However, on the request of Euro the following message was relayed by DBS to the appellant which is quoted hereunder : "we HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY THE DRAWEE, EURO INT'l PTE. LTD. , THAT THEY HAD RAISED TWO INVOICES ON THE DRAWER, REF EL/0241/95-96 ON TENOR D/a 90 DAYS, EI/0284/95-96 ON TENOR D/a 60 DAYS FOR US $ 651,000. 00 EACH, WHICH HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING SINCE SEPT. 1995, NOV. 1995 RESPECTIVELY. THEY HAVE PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS :a) SETTLE BOTH THEIR BILLS, THEY WILL SETTLE THE DRAWER' BILLS, ORB) ADJUST THE DRAWER' OUTSTANDING BILLS AGAINST OUR BILLS N REMIT THE BALANCE TO US" ( 8 ) ACCORDING to Euro, prior to all this in 1994 an oral agreement had been entered into between Euro and Ganapati by which it was agreed that Euro and Ganapati would sell commodities to each other. Accounts would be taken and after accounts were settled, if any sum was due by one to the other same would be paid with interest at 12% p. a. According to Euro it sold diverse goods to Ganapati but did not receive full payment in respect thereof. Accounts would be taken and after accounts were settled, if any sum was due by one to the other same would be paid with interest at 12% p. a. According to Euro it sold diverse goods to Ganapati but did not receive full payment in respect thereof. Ganapati also sold goods to Euro which were covered by the two Bills of Exchange referred to earlier. However, on an accounting arrived at in a meeting between Ganapati and Euro on 9th June, 1997 it was found that Ganapati owed Euro a sum of Rs. 11,44,20,879. 72. It is also alleged that at the meeting, it was agreed between Ganapati and Euro that Euro would release the payments in respect of the two invoices covering the shipment of rice only after Euro received the settled amount from Ganapati. Ganapati was to communicate this agreement to the Appellant-Bank. ( 9 ) THERE is no evidence that there was any such communication. On the other hand Ganapati wrote the following letter on 12th June, 1997 to the Appellant-Bank at its Nariman Point office in Bombay : "you will find that the above Bills of Exchange both drawn on M/s. Euro International Pte. Ltd. , Singapore were submitted to you on 90 days D/a basis for collection only. This is to inform you that Bills drawn and accepted by us against import of various commodities from M/s. Euro International Pte. Ltd. , Singapore amounts to US $ 4,340,362. 77 which 3 till date stands unpaid by us owing to our cash flow problems. Owing to non-receipt of payments from us, M/s. Euro International Pte. Ltd. has not paid the Bills as drawn under the above invoices :in view of the facts as narrated above, we earnestly request you to provide us some more time to sort out this matter with M/s. Euro International Pte. Ltd. " . ( 10 ) EURO filed this Suit on 3rd July, 1997 against Ganapati and the appellant-Bank in which Euro has claimed inter alia for a monetary decree against Ganapati for Rs. 13,42,90,009. Ltd. " . ( 10 ) EURO filed this Suit on 3rd July, 1997 against Ganapati and the appellant-Bank in which Euro has claimed inter alia for a monetary decree against Ganapati for Rs. 13,42,90,009. 08; a permanent injunction restraining Ganapati and the appellant-Bank from demanding and/or insisting on any demand for payment in respect of the supplies made by Ganapati to Euro and in respect of which Bills of Exchange had been executed; a declaration that the appellant-Bank has no right to make any claim on the basis of the two Bills of Exchange; a permanent injunction restraining Ganapati and the appellant-Bank from giving effect to the Bills of Exchange; the delivery and cancellation of the Bills of Exchange; a mandatory injunction directing Ganapati to instruct the appellant-Bank not to take steps for realisation of the proceeds of the Bills of Exchange; for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from making any claim either by itself or through its agents, assigns either directly or through anyone else the amount covered by the two invoices and the Bills of Exchange annexed to the plaint. ( 11 ) AN interlocutory application was moved by Euro in its suit, basically to restrain Ganapati and the appellant from demanding payment in respect of transaction in respect of which the appellant Bank had advance Rs. 40 crores to Ganapati. A ex parte order was passed on 3rd July 1997 directing the status quo to be maintained with regard to the Bills of Exchange. The order was passed on the basis of the settlement stated to have been arrived at between the parties as recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 9th July, 1997. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to the appellant it was never served with any copy of the petition till after 16th July, 1997 when leave was granted to serve the appellant Bank in Bombay. Upon being served the appellant moved an application for vacating the interim order before the learned single Judge. Affidavits were filed and the matter was finally disposed of by the order under appeal. Upon being served the appellant moved an application for vacating the interim order before the learned single Judge. Affidavits were filed and the matter was finally disposed of by the order under appeal. ( 13 ) THE order which is brief is quoted verbatim : "after hearing the parties I am of the opinion that justice will be done in this matter if I pass an order in terms of prayer (d) of the petition keeping all the points open for the parties to urge at the time of hearing of the suit itself. Mr. Raj-sekharan' client (the appellant Bank) shall be at liberty to file counter-claim or set-off as may be advised in the suit itself. Mr. Bhaskar Sen' client (Ganapati) shall also be at liberty to take such steps as may be advised in the suit itself. However, this order will not prevent the Indian Bank to file any application before the Tribunal, if they are otherwise entitled. The written statement be filed by the parties within a fortnight from date, cross-order or discovery within 2 weeks thereafter and inspection be completed forthwith and the suit will appear in the list six weeks hence. Mr. Rajsekharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Bank asks for stay of operation of the order which is refused. Thus, this application is disposed of. The application which has been filed by Mr. Rajsekhara' client will be treated as opposition to the petition filed by Mr. B. Sen' client being G. A. No. 2476 on 1997. This order also disposes of the application being G. A. No. 4150 of 1997 being the application for vacating the interim order. " ( 14 ) PRAYER (d) of Euro' application in terms of which the order was passed reads as follows : "d) Injunction restraining the defendants from seeking to demand any payment from the petitioner in respect of the Bills of Exchange being Annexures D-1 and D-2 without first making payment of the sum due from the defendant No. 1 to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. " ( 15 ) THE appellant' appeal was admitted on 31st July, 1998. The stay application was disposed of by expediting the appeal. The stay petition itself was agreed by the parties to be treated as the paper book. " ( 15 ) THE appellant' appeal was admitted on 31st July, 1998. The stay application was disposed of by expediting the appeal. The stay petition itself was agreed by the parties to be treated as the paper book. ( 16 ) AS we are of the view that the appeal must be allowed by accepting the contentions of the appellant Bank, it is not necessary to record the appellant' submissions separately. ( 17 ) THE impugned order in restraining the 4 appellant-Bank from enforcing its claim on the Bills of Exchange "in any manner whatsoever" is contrary to Section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In effect the learned single Judge has restrained the appellant from initiating proceedings on the basis of the Bills of Exchange, even in Courts of co-ordinate or superior jurisdiction. To that extent the order is bad and without jurisdiction. ( 18 ) THE facts of this case are somewhat similar to the facts in Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, AIR 1983 SC 1272 . In that case a suit had been filed by the United Industrial Bank to restrain the Cotton Corporation of India from enforcing any claim whatsoever in any form from giving effect to Bills of Exchange and Hundis which according to the Bank were null and void. The learned single Judge refused to pass an interim order restraining the Cotton Corporation from proceedings against the Bank on the basis of the Bills of Exchange. The Bank preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed and an interim order was passed by the Appellate Court restraining Cotton Corporation from initiating winding up proceedings against the Bank. Cotton Corporation preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that : "section 41 (b) denies to the Court the jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court which is not subordinate to the Court from which the injunction is sought. " ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court also held that the expression "injunction" in Section 41 (b) : "is not qualified by an adjective and, therefore, it would comprehend both interim and perpetual injuction. " ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court also held that the expression "injunction" in Section 41 (b) : "is not qualified by an adjective and, therefore, it would comprehend both interim and perpetual injuction. " ( 20 ) IT was also held in Cotton Corporations case, ( AIR 1983 SC 1272 ) that the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to nullify Section 41 (b ). The appeal was accordingly allowed by the Supreme Court. ( 21 ) EVEN on the merits, we are of the view that no injunction should have been passed restraining the Appellant-Bank from enforcing the Bills of Exchange. No reason whatsoever has been put forward by the learned single Judge for passing the order except to say that justice would be done by issuing an order in terms of prayer (d ). The merits of the appellant' case or of Euro' case have not at all discussed. The order is not founded on the lack of merit of the appellant' case at all as the Court has given the liberty to the appellant to either raise a counter-claim or to file proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court has not rejected, even prima facie, the claim of the appellant-Bank nor did the learned judge consider the question of the balance of convenience. ( 22 ) THE basis of Euro' claim in the suit against the appellant Bank is the alleged Settlement/agreement between itself and Ganapati. The Bank was not a party to the settlement/agreement. The Bills of Exchange executed in its favour by Ganapati and accepted by Euro were the Bank' security for repayment of the advances made to Ganapati and the release of the documents of title to the rice to Euro. Each bill was an independent and, in express terms, an unconditional agreement. ( 23 ) THE submission of both Euro and Ganapati that the Appellant Bank was merely the collecting agent of Ganapati is contrary to the terms of the Agreement for Bills Purchased as quoted above. Besides the Bills of Exchange contain an unconditional order signed by Ganapati directing Euro to pay the amount mentioned therein only to the appellant Bank. ( 23 ) THE submission of both Euro and Ganapati that the Appellant Bank was merely the collecting agent of Ganapati is contrary to the terms of the Agreement for Bills Purchased as quoted above. Besides the Bills of Exchange contain an unconditional order signed by Ganapati directing Euro to pay the amount mentioned therein only to the appellant Bank. The Appellant Bank being the payee on the Bills of Exchange has the right to realise the amounts stated therein from Euro irrespective of any understanding or agreement that may have been arrived at between Euro and Ganapati to which the Appellant was not a party. ( 24 ) THE decision cited by Euro namely, Narandas Morardas Gajiwala v. S. P. A. M. Papammal, AIR 1967 SC 333 , to contend that the Bills of Exchange could not be relied on by the Bank because of the agreement between Euro and Ganapati is in apposite. That case related to an oral agreement between the promisor and the promisee by which the promisee agreed not to enforce a promissory note against the promisor. There was no such agreement between the appellant Bank with Ganapati and Euro or with either. ( 25 ) IT was then contended by the respondent, that there was no consideration in support of the Bills of Exchange. Apart from the fact that the Bills of Exchange were executed in the circumstances 5 mentioned hereinbefore, where the consideration for execution and acceptance by Ganapati and Euro respectively is apparent, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the Bills of Exchange had been drawn for consideration has not been disproved as far as the appellant Bank is concerned on the material before us. ( 26 ) THE submission of the appellant that the agreement between Ganapati and Euro was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and in particular Sections 8, 16 and 47 need not be considered by us at this stage as we are otherwise of the view that the appellant must succeed on merits. ( 27 ) A submission was sought to be raised by the respondents that the Bills of Exchange were inadmissible as they were not stamped. No such stand has been taken at any stage by the respondents either ante or post litem or in the pleadings of Euro. ( 27 ) A submission was sought to be raised by the respondents that the Bills of Exchange were inadmissible as they were not stamped. No such stand has been taken at any stage by the respondents either ante or post litem or in the pleadings of Euro. As it is a question of fact we do not allow Euro to raise this issue at this stage. ( 28 ) THE final submission of Euro was that even if this Court vacated the interim order on the basis of Section 41 (b) as far as Courts in India were concerned, the appellant Bank should be restrained from filing any proceedings against Euro outside the country and that the appellant must be restricted to filing proceedings only before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The submission is unacceptable as we are prima facie of the view that the appellant-Bank has a right to claim on the basis of Bills of Exchange on merits. Therefore, even if S. 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act does not operate extra-territorially, no case has been made out for grant of an injunction against the appellant-Bank in respect of the Bills of Exchange at all. In the decision of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western Company of North America, AIR 1987 SC 674 , no doubt the Supreme Court restrained a party from filing proceedings outside the country. But the Supreme Court made it clear that this was done only in the rarest of cases upon proof of special circumstances such as oppression etc. if proceedings were initiated in a foreign forum. In the case before the Supreme Court, arbitration proceedings which were governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940, had culminated in an award. The award was challenged under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Pending this, the respondents filed proceedings in the USA for judgment on the award. The Supreme Court held that as the Arbitration Act, 1940 governed the proceeding, only the Indian Courts had jurisdiction to either affirm the award and pass a decree in terms thereof or to set aside the award itself. In the case before us no such case had been made out by Euro before the Trial Court. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider this submission. In the case before us no such case had been made out by Euro before the Trial Court. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider this submission. Incidentally in the cause title Euro has described itself as "a company incorporated and organised under the appropriate laws of Singapore and carrying on business inter alia, at 151, Chin Swee Rd. 09-08, Manhattan House, Singapore". ( 29 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside except in so far as directions have been given for hearing of Euro' suit. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. ( 30 ) THIS order must not be construed as holding that the suit is otherwise maintainable either on the point of jurisdiction or any other ground and it will be open to the Appellant-Bank, if it is otherwise so entitled to pray for dismissal of the suit as it may be advised and in accordance with law. ( 31 ) BASUDEV PANIGRAHI, J. : -. I agree. ( 32 ) LET a xerox copy of the judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the judgment and on payment of usual charges. Appeal allowed.