CORPORATION BANK Vs. PREM SALES AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been directed against the order dated 30th May, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat. By this order, the learned trial Court has granted leave in favour of the defendants without imposing any conditions.

(2.) Mr. Jagga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Bank has relied on Section 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and para 6 of the grounds of revision and contends that in terms of S. 82, the acceptor of the Hundis was bound to pay the amount of the Hundi. He, therefore, contends that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577, the learned trial Court could not have granted the leave unconditionally.

(3.) Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that in the application seeking the leave, respondent/defendants had clearly stated that M/s. Rajasthan Wooltex Ltd. used to send its goods to Panipat for sale through the defendants who were only the agents of the said firm. He further submits that in the application, it was stated that the alleged bills were not being honoured for more than one year; still the plaintiff-Bank went on purchasing the bills from M/s. Rajasthan Wooltex. He, therefore, contends that in such a situation the learned trial Court has rightly granted leave to defend the suit without imposing any conditions. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sunil Enterprises v. S.B.I. Commercial and International Bank Ltd., 1998 (3) JT (SC) 641.