RAVINDER NATH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Bank of India was the plaintiff and the suit for recovery of money against the defendants had been decreed for Rs. 3,69,286.59 with interest. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed. The 1st defendant is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) THE suit had been filed by the Bank on an averment that the 2nd defendant Narain Dass Gosain as the authorized signatory of the 1st defendant applied to the Bank for opening a letter of credit favouring Paras Ram & Brothers, Singapore for a sum of $ 67700 for import of 75 M.T. of RBD Palm Oil and 10 M.T. GUM DAMAR, C&F BOMBAY. The Bank had opened two letters of credit and on the request of the defendants, the credit was enhanced by another $ 70175 making a total credit of $ 1,37,875/ -. The letters of credit had also been amended to provide for the first consignment of 75 M.T. of RBD Palm Oil to be shipped before 16.01.1979. The second installment of 82.5 M.T. to be supplied before 25.01.1979. There was also done an amendment regarding the party, who could do the parcel of the stocks. The documents had been sent to Amritsar Branch of the plaintiff Bank and all the documents pertaining to three consignments had been accepted by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant on 07.04.1979. The 2nd defendant accepted the invoice PR/41/79 dated

(3.) THE defence was that surveyor's report No.1659/79 pertaining to the goods in dispute was made by the International Institute of Adjustors and Surveyors on 16.01.1979 only and the certificate of fitness for human consumption was made on 15.01.1979 which showed the mark JOT and after that, the goods were to be shipped in M.V. S.S. Soloveyev. The list of packing was also done on 16.01.1979. The defendants' contention was that these goods were not the goods to be supplied to the defendants and the bill of lading mark JOT on 16.01.1979 pertained to the goods sent by M/s Paras Ram Brothers, Singapore for invoice of US Dollars 42495.75 did not pertain to the goods ordered by the defendants. Pointing out of a contention that the defendants had accepted the invoices, the contention was that the 2nd defendant took the document dated 07.04.1979 on behalf of the 1st defendant on the assurance given by the Manager, State Bank of India that the documents were correct and the acceptance was retrospective w.e.f. 13.03.1979. But when the defendant scrutinized the document with the help of M/s A. Ahmed & Company, clearing agents at Madras, they found no trace of goods either at Bombay or Madras. The defendant was, therefore, justified in returning the documents to the plaintiff Bank on 13.04.1979 denying that the documents were not correct and the invoices were fake, fabricated and forged. The marking JOT was meant for M/s Jai Hind Oil Traders of M/s Multani Soap Factory, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. The certificate given by the International Institute of Adjustors and Surveyors, Singapore actually showed that the goods ordered by the 1st defendant were in Singapore on 16.01.1979 while the goods marked JOT had been shipped through S.S. Soloveyev that left Singapore on 16.12.1978 and reached Madras on 23.12.1978. The ship had actually berthed at the port on 03.01.1979. M/s D.B. Madan & Company after discovering that consignment of goods marked JOT were of New Bank of India, Jalandhar Road, wrote an ordinary post card to clear the goods and they having not received any reply sent a reminder to the Bank also and having failed in their attempt, M/s DB Madan & Company abandoned the cargo on 22.01.1979 and informed the said fact to the port trust. The firm had actually sent a registered letter to the 1st defendant on 23.01.1979 followed by telegram of the same date that the destination of the goods was Madras while the goods of the 1st defendant were to be dispatched to Bombay for which the freight had been pre -paid. The 1st defendant sent letters dated 20.03.1979 and 30.04.1979 to the Manager, New Railway Road Branch of the State Bank of India requesting them not to remit the amount pertaining to the consignment of 3030 tins of RBD Palm Oil because the documents relating to the same were false and fabricated. The Bank had literally ignored the letters of the 2nd defendant and therefore, the 1st defendant filed a suit against the State Bank of India, New Railway Road Branch and Amritsar Kotwali Branch of the plaintiff Bank for permanent injunction restricting the defendants from remitting the money of the aforesaid consignment abroad. The suit had been filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Jalandhar on 10.05.1979 but the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default when an assurance had been allegedly given by Managers of the Bank that they would not remit the money. The 1st defendant also denied the fact that they had