RAKESH KANDA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF , sole proprietor of G.R. Industries has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the trial Court dated March 7, 2012 (annexure P -4) and the order passed by lower Appellate Court dated May 5, 2012 (annexure P -5) dismissing the application of the plaintiff - petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated case of the plaintiff - petitioner as per his pleading is that he is importer of raw material and defendant - respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. Sims Copper SDN BHD and Synergic Industrial Material Services Pvt. Ltd. respectively are though separate entities but are being run by same person and are part of same group of Companies and they are exporters. Defendant - respondent No. 4 -Malayan Banking BHD is the negotiating Bank and defendant No. 5 is a Shipping Company through which the material was to be supplied and defendant No. 6 is the forwarding agent in India which was to receive the raw material. The plaintiff - petitioner is a foreign importer and was required to arrange a Letter of Credit. Defendant - respondent No. 1 - Allahabad Bank is an opening bank who had issued Letter of Credit. The plaintiff has sought a decree for permanent, mandatory and perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 1 for opening and honouring the Letters of Credit bearing No. 0192711FLU000296 dated November 7, 2011 and No. 0192711FLU000334 dated December 2, 2011 and for restraining defendant No. 4, the negotiating Bank from taking any action or making any payment under the above said Letters of Credit alleging that a fraud has been committed by defendant -respondents No. 2 to 6.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 appeared through Manager and filed affidavit stating that they had been informed about the fraud being played upon the plaintiff for them having not been supplied the goods and that they had further conveyed the same to the beneficiary bank i.e. defendant No. 4, however, no other written statement was furnished by the bank of the defendant - respondent no.1 and opted to stay away after seeking time to file written statement.