PUNJAB WIRELESS SYSTEMS LTD Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned trial Court was dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant. Canara Bank from making payment under two letters of credit i.e. 59/1993 and 72 of 1993 each of the value of 7,38,000 U.S. $. In that suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant, Canara Bank from making any payment under the two letters of credit was also moved. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 25.3.1994. Appeal there against was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh by order dated 13.8.1994. It is how this revision came to be filed at the instance of the plaintiff.

(2.) IT may be noticed at this stage that the petitioner did not implead M/s. NUVO Holdings of America (for short 'the NUVO'), the beneficiary against whom the petitioner has levelled allegations of fraud and forgery. The petitioner also did not implead, the State Bank of India, Los Angeles Agency, California, USA, which had parted with the money. It was not even alleged in the plaint that the State Bank of India, California had even notice of the fraud. The Canara Bank as also the State Bank of India, Los Angeles Agency were later on impleaded as defendants in the suit on an application moved in that behalf under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) A dispute arose about the supply contract. Grouse of the petitioner is that NUVO played a fraud on it by despatching the goods under the orders placed by it without the goods being first getting inspected from its Engineers and in the absence of their inspection notes, which was a condition of the letters of credit. It is only on taking delivery of goods that it came to its notice that the goods supplied were junk and the delivery was taken in good faith having regard to the past dealings. On examining the documents, which came to its notice after taking delivery of the goods, it transpired that the documents were discrepant, inasmuch as the certificates purporting to be on the letter -pad of the petitioner -concern and bearing signatures of one Mr. Brar and accompanying documents were forged and fake and no person of the name of Mr. Brar had ever been employed or authorised by the petitioner for clearing the goods and even otherwise the letter -pad on which the alleged certificates had been obtained, was only a photo copy of the letter -pad and was not an original one. This forgery was brought to the notice of the bank by specifically mentioning that inspection certificates forming part of the documents and presented by NUVO were forged documents and payment under the letters of credit be not made without satisfying itself about the genuineness of those documents.