Honble SHARMA, J.–This appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kota whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 2,72,000/-. (2). The plaintiff respondent, Food Corporation of India filed a suit against the defendant appellants with the allegation that pursuant to the tenders invited by it for conversion of gram into `dal, the firm M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries submitted its tender, which was accepted. The Regional Manager vide telegram dated 8.8.77 informed the firm about acceptance of tender. Thereafter the Plaintiff and the firm entered into a contract and as per the terms of contract, the Firm M/s. Agro Industries had to convert 453 metric tons of gram into `dal. According to the terms and conditions of the tender, the Rajasthan Agro Industries extended two bank guarantees, one for Rs. 1,82,000/- and another for Rs. 18,000/- in favour of Food Corporation of India. The bank guarantees were extended to meet the loss which may be suffered by the Food Corporation of India in the event of failure to perform the contract by the Rajasthan Agro Industries. The Rajasthan Agro Industries received in all 849 Quintals and 78.900 Kgs. Gram, the cost, in accordance with the rate mentioned in the tender, was Rs. 2,16,696/-. The conversion of gram into `dal was to be made in terms of specifications contained in Appendix-5 of the tender. (3). As per the allegation in the plaint, the Firm failed to covert gram into `dal as per the specification, inasmuch as the Manager Quality Control found that the sample of dal as converted by the firm was not in accordance with the specification prescribed in Appendix 5. Therefore, it was pleaded that there was breach of agreement and as such the plaintiff was not bound to accept the delivery of `dal. As per the terms of Bank guarantee the plaintiff was entitled to meet the loses that may be suffered on account of breach of terms of agreement, by getting the bank guarantees of Rs. 1,82,000/- and 18,000/- encased. The bank guarantee was effective till 15.4.1978 and its period was further extended by one month. The plaintiff alleged that since the Firm breached the agreement during the period the bank guarantee was in existence and that the gram for the value of Rs. 1,82,000/- and 18,000/- encased. The bank guarantee was effective till 15.4.1978 and its period was further extended by one month. The plaintiff alleged that since the Firm breached the agreement during the period the bank guarantee was in existence and that the gram for the value of Rs. 2,16,696 was already lying with the Firm and accordingly caused loss to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff Corporation is entitled to get the bank guarantee encashed. (4). The plaintiff further alleged that Rajasthan Agro Industries apprehending encashment of bank guarantee by the plaintiff on account of breach of agreement, filed a suit and obtained ex- parte injunction order, but the same was quashed by the court vide order dated 31.1.78. Thereafter the plaintiff submitted Bank guarantee No. 38/77 and issued telegram on 2.2.78 for getting bank guarantee No. 39/77 encashed, but the defedant Bank did not encash the bank guarantee and accordingly breached the terms and conditions of the bank guarantee and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 2 lacs in terms of aforesaid bank guarantees. The plaintiff averred that since there was breach of agreement, the defendant bank was obliged to encash the bank guarantee extended on behalf of the firm. With the above allegations, the plaintiff filed a suit, thereby claiming Rs. 2 lacs under the bank guarantees and Rs. 72,000/- as interest thereon. (5). The defendant bank denied the allegations made in the plaint by filing written statement. The trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues and at the conclusion of trial, decreed the plaintiffs suit against the defendant bank, holding that plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 2 lacs as against the amount of bank guarantees and Rs. 72,000/- as interest thereon. Hence the present appeal by the defendant bank. (6). Mr. D.K. Soral, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously submitted that the plaintiff respondent never intimated about the loses alleged to be suffered by it. It has further been submitted that the Bank guarantee extended by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur on behalf of the Firm M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries was neither unconditional nor unequivocal in terms, inasmuch as it has not been stated that Bank would be liable to meet the entire loss that may be suffered by the plaintiff on account of breach of its agreement with the Rajasthan Agro Industries. On this strength it has been argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the amount covered by the bank guarantee. In support of his contention, Mr. Soral has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1999 SC 3710 ). (7). Per contra, Mr. J.P. Goyal appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that there was clear breach of contract by the Rajasthan Agro Industries, thereby causing loss of more than Rs. Two lacs to the plaintiff Food Corporation of India and therefore the defendant Bank extending guarantee on behalf of Rajasthan Agro Industries is responsible to meet the loss suffered by the plaintiff, out of the amount covered under the Bank Guarantee. Learned counsel submitted that the bank guarantee is like a credit note for all purposes and, therefore, the bank is liable to pay the amount covered under the bank guarantee, which imposes an absolute obligation on the bank in its terms. In support of his argument learned Advocate has relied upon M/s. Basant Rlymers Alwar vs. State Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India ( AIR 1986 Raj. 1 ), United Commercial Bank vs. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd and others (AIR 1985 Calcutta 96), M/s. Banwari Lal Radhe Mohan vs. Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (AIR 1982 Delhi 357), Dena Bank vs. The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and others (AIR 1990 Patna 221) and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1999 SC 3710 ) (supra). (8). I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the evidence and the judgments cited at the bar. PW. 3 Indrajeet Singh, who was Regional Manager of the plaintiff Corporation has stated that Agro Industries did not covert Gram into Gram dal according to the specifications of FCI. Since Dal was not in terms of specification, therefore, it was rejected. The witness further stated that the contract rate of Gram was Rs. 255/- per quintal. In cross examination the witness stated that about 85 metric tons of gram was supplied to M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries for its conversion into `dal, the cost of which comes to the tune of Rs. 2,16,696/-. It is thus evident that plaintiff Corporation suffered loss of more than Rs. 255/- per quintal. In cross examination the witness stated that about 85 metric tons of gram was supplied to M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries for its conversion into `dal, the cost of which comes to the tune of Rs. 2,16,696/-. It is thus evident that plaintiff Corporation suffered loss of more than Rs. 2 lacs on account of breach of agreement inasmuch as gram dal was not up to the specifications of the Corporation. (9). PW.1 Madhu Sudan, District Manager of the Corporation has deposed that Agro Industries had extended two bank guarantees, one for Rs. 18000/- and another for Rs. 1,82,000/-, which are Exs. 1 and 2, respectively. The Raj. Agro Industries were required to covert gram into gram dal as per the specifications contained in Appendix 5, but it did not convert gram into gram dal as per the specifications contained in Appendix 5. (10). The bank guarantee Ex. 1 reads as under: ``We the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Industrial Estate, Kota do hereby undertake to indemnify and keep indemnified the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) to the extent of Rs. 1,82,000/- (One lack eighty two Thousand only) against any loss, claim suit, proceeding or damages, costs charges and expenses caused to or suffered by the Corporation by reason of any breach by the said contractors of any term or condition of the said Agreement and authorise the Corporation to recover the same directly from us. We agree to pay to the Corporation on demand any sum which may become payable to the Corporation under the said Agreement, and in respect of which, we State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Industrial Estate, Kota hereby give this guarantee for payment. We State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Industrial Estate, Kota agree that the Corporation shall be the sole judge whether the said contractors have committed any breach of breaches any of the terms and conditions of the said Agreement and the extent of loss, damage costs, charges and expenses suffered or incurred by the Corporation on account thereof. It is evident that the Bank in an specific and unequivocal terms has agreed to meet any loss, claim suit, proceedings or damages, costs charges and expenses caused to or suffered by the Corporation by reason of any breach by the Raj. Agro Industries of any term or condition of the said Agreement. It is evident that the Bank in an specific and unequivocal terms has agreed to meet any loss, claim suit, proceedings or damages, costs charges and expenses caused to or suffered by the Corporation by reason of any breach by the Raj. Agro Industries of any term or condition of the said Agreement. The bank has also authorised the Corporation to recover the same directly from them. The Bank also agreed to the condition that the Corporation shall be the sole judge to decide whether contractor had committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the extent of loss. Therefore, the Corporation was not even obliged to inform the Bank regarding the amount of loss suffered by it for breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the contractor. Similar is the under taking Ex. 2. I also find favour with the argument of Mr. Goyal, counsel for the respondent that Bank guarantee is as goods as a credit note, inasmuch as there are catena of decisions on this point, some of which have been relied upon by Mr. Goyal. (11). In Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by Mr. Soral, learned counsel for the appellant, the bank guarantee was furnished in terms of Clause 9 of the Principal Contract between the parties. To make a distinction between the two bank guarantees, one in the instant case and another in the above case before the Apex Court, it would be profitable to refer the bank guarantee extended in the cited case, which reads as under: ``We the State Bank of India, incorporated under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having one of our branches at Nyayamurti C.N. Vaidya Marg, Fort, Bombay- 400023 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Bank), as instructed by the Contractor, agree unconditionally and irrevocably to guarantee as primary obligator and not as surety merely, the payment of the Executive Engineer, Kharkai Dam Division II, Icha, Chaliama Post Kesargarhia, Dist. Singhbhum, Sihar, on his first demand without whatsoever right of objection on our part and without his first claim to the contractor, in the amount not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Singhbhum, Sihar, on his first demand without whatsoever right of objection on our part and without his first claim to the contractor, in the amount not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only) in the event that the obligations expressed in the said clause of the above mentioned contract have not been fulfilled by the contractor giving the right of claim to the employer for recovery of the whole or part of the Advance Mobilization Loan from the Contractor under the contract. (12). In para 12 of the Judgment, the Apex Court observed: ``Where the Bank, in the above guarantee, no doubt, has used the expression ``agree unconditionally and irrevocably to guarantee payment to the Executive Engineer on his first demand without any right of object, but these expressions are immediately qualified by following: ``.....in the event that the obligations expressed in the said clause of the above mentioned contract have not been fulfilled by the contractor giving the right of claim to the employer for recovery of the whole or part of the Advance Mobilization Loan from the contractor under the contract. Having referred the above expression, the Apex Court held as under: ``... The Bank Guarantee thus could be invoked only in the circumstances referred to in Clause 9 whenever the amount would become payable only if the obligations are not fulfilled or there is misappropriation. That being so, the Bank guarantee could not be said to be unconditional or unequivocal in terms so that the defendants could be said to have had an unfettered right to invoke that Guarantee and demand immediate payment thereof from the Bank. (13). In the instant case the Bank guarantee specifically contains the condition that Corporation shall be the sole judge to decide whether the contractor has committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the extent of loss, and the Bank agreed to pay the amount of bank guarantee on demand by the Corporation. That being so the Bank guarantee can well be said to be unconditional or unequivocal in terms, giving unfettered right to the plaintiff Corporation to invoke that guarantee and demand immediate payment thereof from the Bank. In the circumstances therefore, the case relied upon by the counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of the present case. (14). In the circumstances therefore, the case relied upon by the counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of the present case. (14). For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that plaintiff suffered a loss of more than Rs. 2 lacs on account of breach of agreement by the Rajasthan Agro Industries, inasmuch as the gram converted by it was not as per the specifications contained in Appendix-5 and hence the plaintiff Corporation is entitled to claim the amount covered under the Bank guarantees, Exs. 1 and 2. (15). It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bank was not required to encash the Bank guarantees in view of the injunction order having been granted by the court of Munsiff on the injunction application filed by the Rajasthan Agro Industries and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. (16). I have considered the above argument. PW. 2 Jodha Ram has stated that on 1.2.1978 he had accompanied District Manager of the Corporation to the Bank for encashment of bank guarantees, but the Manager of the Bank did not encash the bank guarantees and continued to avoid encashment on the ground of there by stay by the court. According to this witness it was absolutely wrong as the injunction order had already been vacated. PW. 3 Indrajeet Singh has stated in his cross examination that for getting the encashment of bank guarantee stayed, the firm agro Industries had filed a case in the court filed a case in the court of Munsiff and had also filed an appeal in the District Court. (17). One of the causes that was stated by the bank for non- encashment of the amount of bank guarantee was pendency of some dispute in the court. However, the bank was not a party to such dispute before the court. Further the Bank has not been able to fortify this fact by adducing any evidence as to on which terms and conditions the stay order was granted. Be that as it may, it is true that Rajasthan Agro Industries had filed a suit against the plaintiff. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of injunction was also filed. Be that as it may, it is true that Rajasthan Agro Industries had filed a suit against the plaintiff. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of injunction was also filed. It is also true that the learned Munsiff court granted ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the firm. However, after hearing counsel for both the parties, the learned Munsiff vide its order dated 31.7.1978 vacated the ex-parte injunction order. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.78 the Rajasthan Agro Industries filed an appeal which came to heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Kota. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 26.9.1978, Ex. A/1 dismissed the appeal. It is thus clear that there was no stay order so as to entitle the Bank to refuse encashment of the Bank guarantee. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Bank was not obliged to encash the bank guarantee has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected. (18). A glance at the impugned judgments shows that the trial Court while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff has considered the evidence both ocular and documentary in true perspective and hence the impugned judgment and decree call for no interference. (19). Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.