HOUSE OF DUBARY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Petition by the House of Dubary against the Punjab National Bank (erstwhile New Bank of India) is a one page petition but contains all relevant facts and pleas filed by Professor Shatrughan Darbari, Managing Partner of the complainant alleging deficiency in service of the opposite party in not giving the due interest to the complainant from 1979 to 1986 on a sum of Rs. 37.50 lakhs as received from Yugoslavian buyers as payments for the third consignment of electronic items to House of Dubary and illegally kept by the opposite party in its Sundry Accounts.

(2.) THE relevant facts as culled out from the pleadings and the complainant's affidavit which also contain extraneous matters are these. House of Dubary, a partnership firm, had opened a Current Account No. 123 with New Bank of India at Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi besides other accounts and Fixed Deposit Receipts. The complainant was engaged in the business of export of consumer goods to various countries. The complainant had entered into an export deal with M/s. SOLUN 91480 GEVGELIJA, Yugoslavia and the documents pertaining to that deal were negotiated through the opposite party. The payments were given to the opposite party by the said Yugoslavian buyer through their Bankers STOPAISKA BANKA SKOTPE, Yugoslavia, through manufacturer Hanover Trust Co, International Division 4, New York Plaza, U.S.A. for credit to the complainant. The payment by the Yugoslavian buyer was against a Letter of Credit. According to the complainant, they received on or about 6.9.79 through opposite party a payment of US dollars 4,24,504.89 equivalent to Indian Rs. 33,82,507.08 from the Yugoslavian buyers against the Letter of Credit and similarly another payment US dollars 50,000 equivalent to Indian Rs. 3,84,911.47 was received on 7.6.80, but the opposite party failed and neglected to credit these amounts in the accounts, already opened and in operation or to convert into the Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing interest, but the same was credited in a Sundry Account by the opposite party illegally without any authority and instruction from the complainant. The case is that the sum of Rs. 37,67,470.55 was neither credited to the account of the complainant nor converted into Fixed Deposit Receipts despite instructions by the complainant to the opposite party and no interest on the said amount has been credited or given. This amount was4cept by the opposite party is Sundry Account allegedly in pursuance of a restraint order from a Civil Court. Ultimately as per the orders of High Court of Gujarat dated 28.4.86 in First Appeal No. 531/86 the amount was directed to be invested in the State Bank of India main branch in the name of the Additional Registrar, Gujarat High Court. The opposite party was directed to transfer the aforesaid amount in the State Bank of India but clarified that the opposite party would not permit the complainant to withdraw any amount out of the said amount from the New Bank of India, Defence Colony branch, New Delhi.

(3.) THE case came up for hearing before this Commission on 7th March, 1995. The opposite party's defence was based on the restraint order passed by the Civil Judge, Bhuj Court by the order dated 9th May, 1979. That Order was not on the record of the case. A copy of the Order dated 21st May, 1979 of the Civil Judge, Bhuj Court was brought to our notice restraining the opposite party from transferring Rs. 62,91,245.18 realised from Yogoslavian buyers of suit goods in the account of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 till 19.6.79 and extended up to 11.7.79 but the subsequent orders of the Court were not on the record. The hearing of the case was adjourned and in the meanwhile Counsel for the complainant undertook to produce in the form of a paper book all relevant documents which would throw light on the question whether there was a Court order prohibiting the Bank from making payment of the amounts to the complainant which was operative beyond 11th of July, 1979. The complainant was called upon to produce as part of the said paper book copies of all the relevant correspondence that passed between the complainant and the Bank in relation to the retention of the said amount by the Bank and the manner in which the said amount should have been retained in the Bank in view of the Court orders. A set of copies of the Courts orders and documents have been filed by the complainant. The documents were, however, scattered with the affidavits, with the written arguments or with the compilation of its own. When the matter came up for hearing on 29th November, 1995 we directed the Counsel for the complainant to file a self contained compilation of relevant documents / orders but only selected documents were filed. We had considerable difficulty in weeding through the records to find out the relevant documents.