PANJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the calcutta High Court, in an appeal filed by the appellant, the defendant in the suit filed by respondent no. 1-bank. Learned Single judge in the said suit held that there was no need to adopt procedure indicated by this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central excise (described hereinafter case as ongc I Case). The Division Bench affirmed the view of learned single Judge. The correctness of the view expressed by the learned single Judge and the Division bench forms the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent no. 1 -bank against the appellant-bank along with 11 other defendants with the following prayers:- (a) Declaration that the banker's cheque copy whereof is annexed marked A hereto is void and not binding on the plaintiff. (b) Decree of Rs. 5,62,66,671/- against the defendants jointly and/or severally and/or such of them for such amount as this hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (c) Decree of Rs. 5,62,66,671/- against the defendant no. 1 together with interest. (d) Interest including interim interest as claimed in paragraph 29; (e) Receiver; (f) Costs; (g) Further any other reliefs.

(3.) An application was filed by the appellant-bank for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the modalities indicated in ONGC-I case (supra) were not followed. Learned single Judge held that the decision has to be read in the context which was passed. This Court never intended to extinguish the right to sue. Intention was to avoid litigation when the parties are government or its undertakings.