LAWS(CAL)-2006-7-63

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD Vs. CITY BANK LTD

Decided On July 20, 2006
NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD. Appellant
V/S
CITY BANK LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 3rd April, 2006 by which an application for attachment before judgment was disposed of attaching US $ 15,078.26 from out of the moneys lying to the credit of the defendant No. 1 with : 1]. American Express Bank, 21, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700001, 2]. The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd.,2, Brabourne Road, Calcutta-700001, 3]. Sonali Bank, 15, Park Street , Calcutta-700016, and 4]. Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd., Mumbai Branch, Liberty Building, New Marine Lines, 41-42, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Mumbai-400020.

(2.) US $ 4,717.73 to the credit of the defendant No. 1 are lying in each of those four banks.

(3.) Challenging the aforesaid order the plaintiff has come up before this Court. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the learned Trial Court came to a finding that US $ 814.51 was payable towards the principal. US $ 6,830.77 and US $ 64,671.16 were also payable. While adding up the figures, the learned Trial Court fell into an error and came to an erroneous finding that the total works out to US $ 15,078.26 and, accordingly, US $ 15,078.26 were attached, whereas the entire money lying with all the four banks to the credit of the defendant No. 1 should have been attached because the aggregate of the quantum of money lying with those banks is far less than the figure found to be due to the plaintiff by the learned Trial Court even prima facie. It was, therefore, submitted by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate, that the order should be corrected and the entire eighteen thousand dollars approximately lying to the credit of the defendant No. 1 should be attached before judgement. He added that learned Trial Court has erroneously put the plaintiff on terms that in the event the plaintiff fails at the final hearing of the suit, the plaintiff shall be liable to pay interest on the attached amount at the rate of 25% per annum because that is not the permissible rate of interest. He, therefore, submitted that this part of the order is also bad.