STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. M S HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of IA 7907/94 and IA 7548/94. IA 7907/94 This calls for aninterpretation of the term "Security". Whether a person or institution can himself provide a 'security' in response to a call of the Court or should a 'security' to be so must necessarily emanate from a surety i.e. a third person.

(2.) It would be useful to notice briefly the facts in the background. The plaintiff bank filed a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against the three defendants namely, Mr M.S. Handa, Mr Ashwani Kapoor and Indian Overseas Bank. The plaintiff is a banking company incorporated in England but is having its branch offices at several places in India including one at 17, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. Vide order dated 143.93, this Court had allowed unconditional leave to defend to all the three defendants. There was an appeal preferred to the Division Bench being FAO 56/93. It was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.8.93. The plaintiff had also filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 26.11.93, ( Civil Appeal No. 7172-74 and 7175 of 1993), their Lordships of the Supreme Court granted special leave and after hearing the parties, made the following order :

(3.) On 27.1.1994, Indian Overseas bank defendant No.3, tendered an amount of Rs. I crore by way of a cheque and the Court directed the Registrar to accept the same. On 21.4.94, on an application filed by the plaintiff to withdraw the sum of Rs. I crore deposited by defendant NO.3, the court directed that the plaintiff may withdraw Rs. I crore after furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court.