PALBRO INTERNATIONAL Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the suits which are for recovery of certain sums of money from the defendants have a common factual matrix. The Plaintiffs in both the suits are sister concern of which one Shri Hiren Manekji Palani is a partner. The said Hiren is the brother of Shri Hridhish M. Palani, who has verified the plaints. The said Hridhish Palani was a partner in both the Plaintiff firms. He is now deceased. The Federal Bank Limited is the common defendant in both the suits.

(2.) COMMON evidence has been recorded in both the suits by consent of the parties vide order dated 6th August 2004 passed by this court (P.V. Kakade J.). The evidence recorded in suit no. 2637 of 1986 is to be read as evidence in Suit no.2833 of 1986. Hence the issues in both suits are tried together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE plaintiffs by their letter dated 24th May 1982 instructed the defendant Bank to re credit the amount of Rs.3 lakhs with interest the current account no.1 of the plaintiffs with the defendant Bank. By their letter dated 27.5.1982 Exhibit P6 the defendants informed the plaintiffs that they had referred the matter to the higher authorities. The plaintiffs allege that from time to time they called upon the defendants to re-credit the said amount to the plaintiffs' account but there was no response from the defendants and therefore, finally by their letter dated 29.5.1982 (Ex. P8) the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to credit the margin money as the plaintiffs had cleared all packing credit and shipping loan liabilities. However, the defendants by their letter dated 8.6.1982 (Ex. P10) inter alia informed the plaintiffs for the first time that the plaintiffs along with its sister concern of which one R.M. Palani was the partner were entrusted with the sale of lentil seeds / masoor dal on account of one Mulraj G. Dungarsey & Company Private Limited. It was further stated that huge amounts were outstanding to be settled on the said account. Thereupon the plaintiffs by their letter dated 12.6.82 (Ex. P11) pointed out that there was no justification for withholding the payment of the FDR. It was further pointed out that the plaintiffs did not owe any money to the defendants. Thereafter there was further correspondence in the matter but the defendants failed to re-credit the FDR amount to the plaintiffs current account.