M S ADIL Vs. SYNDICATE BANKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 17981/2013 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) and 17982/2013 (u/S 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 5566 days in filing the suit) IA No. 17981/2013 is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. On 11.12.2013 this court had restrained defendant No.1 -Bank from recovering any sum from the plaintiff in terms of the sanction letter dated 09.12.1993.

(2.) THE accompanying suit is filed for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction by the plaintiff. The plaint states that defendant No.2 entered into a Bank Guarantee Limit Agreement with defendant No.1 on 09.12.1993. It is urged that as newly appointed Executive Director, the plaintiff on the asking of the Bank signed certain blank papers in the form of a guarantee as guarantors to the B.G. Limit issued in favour of defendant No.2. It is further stated that defendant No.1forwarded the format of bank guarantee to its Zonal Office which had certain objections. It is urged that defendant No.1 thereafter unilaterally altered/changed the bank guarantee limit vide slip dated 01.03.1994 and converted the same into an inland letter of credit. Contemporaneously, the Bank also increased the period of credit limit from 45 days to 60 -90 days. The plaintiff is said to have protested vide letter dated 12.05.1994. Hence it is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has unilaterally altered/changed the terms of the bank guarantee. Various other contentions are raised. Based on these contentions, a decree of declaration is sought declaring that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any sum to defendant No.1 Bank. A decree of permanent and mandatory injunction is also sought restraining defendant No. 1 from recovering any sum from the plaintiff in terms of sanction letter dated 09.12.1993 by which the Bank Guarantee Limit Agreement was executed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that there are clear variations in the terms of the contract without the consent of the plaintiff. Hence, it is stated that the present suit for declaration has been filed as the same is not barred under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "DRT Act).