IMPRESSION EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant company has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10/2/1999 by Additional District Judge dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.4 ,14,865.00.

(2.) The appellant company was allowed the Foreign Bill Purchase (FBP) and Packing Credit Facility (PCF) by the respondent bank to the extent of Rs;3 lakhs each. According to the appellants, the terms and conditions were not disclosed by the respondent, bank at the time of granting of facilities and the appellant company was made to sign the unfilled bank documents. The appellant company had deposited with the respondent bank two bills (i) bill No.90 D(502473) for US $ 21,467; and (ii) bill No. 91 C(503282) for GBP 13,500. They claimed that bill No.90-D was discharged under two bank drafts and the balance, if any, was required to be discharged from the margin money lying with the respondent bank. According to them, the bank wrongfully crystalised bill No.90-D before the date of maturity prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. As a consequence, the bank wrongfully charged excess amount of Rs.1,16,198.00 on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange rate. Likewise, the export bill No.91-C was discharged by the appellants under Letter of Credit, but the said bill was not purchased by the respondent bank but was sent for collection. The demand draft for US$ 2630 was given to the bank under Foreign Bill Purchase facility which was allegedly not lodged for collection in time and when it was lodged for collection, it was lodged in the wrong branch of the bank. In this respect, the respondent debited the account of the appellant for a sum of Rs.61,785.00 towards some cancellation charges against some forward contract alleged to have been booked by the appellant company. The appellants also claimed to have deposited a bank draft of Rs-41,104.00 towards duty draw back. They also claimed the deposit of further amounts of Rs.50,000.00 on 6/5/1992 and Rs.49,8487.00 on 24/3/1993. The claim of the appellants in the suit is that the bank,refused to settle the accounts and filed a false recovery suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The. titled deeds of property No.2-C/25, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, were alleged to be handed over to the bank for the' purposes of valuation and were offered as security, which was not accepted by the bank. Thus, appellants claimed recovery against the bank to the tune of Rs.4,14,865.00 and for mandatory injunction for return of,original title deeds of the property.

(3.) Respondent bank in the written statement alleged that the Foreign Bill Purchase Facility was to the extent of Rs.4 lakhs whereas the Packing Credit Facility was extended to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs. All the terms and conditions were disclosed to the appellants and the documents were duly signed. Two export bills have been admitted. Further it is denied that the export bill No.90~D was discharged by two bank drafts by the appellants. Any margin money lying with the bank was als'o denied. Draft of US$ 2630 was returned unpaid. It was not sent for collection in time at the request of the' Managing Director of the appellant company for fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. The bank held k.he appellants liable. Various amounts as alleged by the appellants were intact correctly debited to their account. The respondent bank had raised preliminary objection that with regard to the Foreign Bill Purchase facility and Packing Credit, Facility provided to the appellants, the bank had already filed a suit for recovery before the Tribunal where the appellants had filed their written statement and in view of the pendency of the said suit before the Tribunal, the present suit filed by the-appellant was not maintainable. The plea was also raised trial the claim in the bank suit is nothing else but adjustment and defence to the suit filed by the bank and it could not be treated as a counter claim. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties :