HARRY AND JENNY EXPORT INTERNATIONAL Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in this complaint have filed an application with a prayer to hear on the maintainability with a prayer to hear on the maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue. The complainant has filed its objection to the application. On due appraisal of the reasons advanced on either side, we decided to hear the matter on the issue of maintainability and accordingly arguments of either side were heard.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case as set out in the complaint centred round the failure of opposite party-3 - Syndicate Bank, Sadashivanagar Branch, Bangalore, to sanction requisite finance towards working capital for a project envisaged by the complainant to manufacture and export Hawai slippers and rubber Hawai chappals. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties had approved the project report of the complainant which assessed the working capital requirement at Rs.60 lakhs; but later, when the complainant invested substantial sums of money on infrastructure on the basis of an assurance of necessary loan facility towards further working capital, the opposite parties refused to release any assistance beyond a mere 5.5 lakh rupees overdraft facility. This has resulted in wrecking the entire project, thereby spelling disaster to a highly lucrative export venture. It is stated that once having accepted the project report, the opposite parties are guilty of reneging on their contractual obligations when they did a turn-about by holding that the project was not viable as the complainant's assets were non-performance assets. It is emphasised that such an volte-face amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

(3.) Mr. M. C. Ravikumar, learned Counsel for the complainant contended before us that the opposite parties have not come out with any reason in their objection as to the circumstance in which they went back on a facility promised to the complainant while approving the project report. It was submitted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes to the aid of the complainant in such a circumstance as per the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1983 SC 848. The learned Counsel also relied on the following further decisions in support of the case of the complainant : 1. AIR 1993 SC 935 2.1992 (1) CPR 442 (NC)3. III (1992) CPJ 61 (NC)