As per case facts, a plaintiff, a ship repair company, performed services for a vessel owner who defaulted on payment. Defendant No. 1, a charterer, undertook to remit a portion ... of the freight directly to the plaintiff and issued a 'Corporate Guarantee' for this. Defendant No. 1 instructed its bank, Defendant No. 2, to transfer the funds, but the bank mistakenly remitted the amount to the vessel owner. Defendant No. 1 appealed, arguing its undertaking was not a guarantee and that it fulfilled its obligation, while Defendant No. 2 appealed its liability, claiming it acted within statutory limitations for foreign exchange. The question arose whether Defendant No. 1's undertaking constituted a valid guarantee and if Defendant No. 2 was liable for the erroneous remittance. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Defendant No. 1's undertaking was a valid guarantee, making it directly liable to the plaintiff. The Court also upheld the third-party decree against Defendant No. 2 (Bank), stating that the bank erred by not following its customer's instructions, and both appeals were dismissed.