METAL FORGINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are fighting their legal battles since the year 1985. There seems to be no end to it. Whereas M/s. Metal Forging Pvt.Ltd. has filed as many as four suits the Allahabad Bank has instituted one. A brief resume of those suits is called for to have an overall view of the applications leading to this order. Suit No-1192 of 1985 by Metal Forging Pvt. Ltd. is- for the recovery of Rs-60,60,395.37. The company alleges that loss was suffered due to stoppage of L.C. facilities and bank guarantee facilities by the defendant bank. The second suit by it bears No-1195 of 1985. It is for the recovery ofRs-40,06,687.85. It alleges losses on account of alleged acts of omissions and commission on the part of the defendant bank. The third suit bears No-1626/85. This too is by the said Company and is for the recovery of Rs-21,42,404.85. It makes a grievance of the alleged refusal or failure of the defendant bank to adjust certain amounts due to the plaintiff. Suit No. 1196 is also of the year 1985 instituted by the same company for recovery of Rs.42,72,514.49. It alleges the defendant bank having made debits in the account of the plaintiff company on account of interest and other charges from time to time, which allegedly were not due and for having charged interest and penal interest on the amount so over charged showing the same as the balance due from the plaintiff company with varying rates of interest. On the other hand suit No. 158Q of 1985 is by the Allahabad Bank against the said company for the recovery of Rs-9,97,24,689.61. As already noticed above there seems to be no end, at least not in the near future, to the suits. Real issues are yet to be touched. The battles range around the periphery only with interim applications a la galore. This order too has been prompted by two of those I.A.s - one in suit No-1580/85 instituted by the bank and the second in suit No. 1196/85. The applicant in both the cases happens to be the Allahabad Bank.

(2.) I am conscious of the fact that both the suits are different and that the applicants ordinarily ought to have seen two Separate orders dealing with both the applications. However, the facts are so inter-twined that it is difficult to extricate one from the other. Hence this exercise to deal with both these applications by one order.

(3.) In the suit instituted by the bank it had also moved two applications - one was I.A. No-4822 of 1985 under Order 38 rule 5 and the other bearing No-5454 of 1985 under Order 39 rule s 1 and 2. Those applications came upbefore the court for consideration on August, 26, 1985 when the followihg order was passed: