Y VENKATRAYULU Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed for a direction against the second respondent to pay US$33,125 with interest of 24% at quarterly rest from the date of each bill by equivalent of Indian currency Rs. 43 per dollar making a total value of 35 Lakhs with costs.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having a current account at the second respondent Bank, which is an authorised dealer to deal with foreign exchange having head office at Hyderabad. The petitioner who is doing export business, has submitted four shipping documents for export of Onions to Malaysia in four bills. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1415_TLMAD0_2006Html1.htm</FRM> Making a total 33,125 U. S. dollars. The bills of exchange were drawn on document against the payment terms and pursuant to that, the goods were shipped through the authorized bank with instruction to collect the payment from the buyer in foreign countries and deliver goods to the buyers. The shipping company delivers goods to the buyers against indemnity for payment to bank and according to the petitioner all the five containers have been delivered to the buyers. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has endorsed the documents to their correspondent banks with instructions to collect payment from the buyers and to deliver the goods to them and if the buyers failed to pay the money, the goods must be protected and alternative arrangement of sale must be made. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has not taken steps to collect or demand the payment and colluded with buyers and the shipping companies, since the second respondent has not enforced the indemnity against the shipping company. With the result the amounts have not been paid. However the goods have been delivered. According to the petitioner, the conduct of the second respondent in not protecting the goods and making delivery without collecting payment is unlawful. According to the petitioner, this is against the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and rules. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed for the relief as sought for.

(3.) ON the other hand, the second respondent has filed counter affidavit.