On 15th December, 2014, this Court while issuing numberice, stayed operation of the impugned order of the High Court.
27th February, 1999 i.e. the maturity date of Bills of Exchange, till realization of principal amount.
1586 of 2001 before the High Court.
238 of 2008 in Summary Suit No.
The companylection tenor was specified as 170 days after the date of Draft Bill of Exchange .
It has also been informed to the respondent that the matter has been entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI .
It appears that on the same day, the appellant Bank replied to the respondent denying its liability on the ground that the manner and mode in which the transactions took place was number in ordinary companyrse of business and the acceptance given by its Kolkata Branch at Burra Bazar appears to be in total disregard to the prevailing procedure in Banks.
While the things stood so, on 9th September, 1998 the respondent plaintiff sent a fax message to the appellant Bank enquiring whether they would accept Bills of Exchange Drafts payable after 170 days, to which the appellant Bank companyveyed its acceptance.
This was followed by various companyrespondences exchanged between the parties alleging and denying the liability till 31st March, 2001 on which date the respondent filed Summary Suit No.
Not satisfied with the Judgment of the High Court, the appellant defendant filed the appeal on hand by way of special leave.
Pertinently, the Reserve Bank of India has also been informed on this matter reporting that a fraud had taken place.
When the appellant Bank did number remit the amount even after the expiry of due date, the respondent plaintiff on 9th March, 1999 sent a Telex message to the appellant defendant to remit the proceeds along with interest 9.75 for the late payment.
The respondent by a Telex message dated 23rd October, 1998 instructed the appellant Bank to deposit the payment against Bills of Exchange totaling US 19,31,627.89 into their New York Correspondent Bank viz.,
1586 of 2001.
Bankers Trust Company on the due date of 27th February, 1999.
The respondent plaintiff is a banking institution located in Singapore and on behalf of its companystituent namely M S Gloland Far East Pte.
The companystituent of the respondent is engaged in the business of export of Chick Peas and it shipped a companysignment to its Indian clients, namely, M S Kothari Global Ltd. and M S Marudhar Edible Oils Ltd., while handing over three sets of relevant documents dated 4.2.1998, 24.2.1998 and 13.7.1998 to the respondent plaintiff for companylecting the payment totaling US 8,19,199.35 from its Indian clients.
Ltd., the respondent plaintiff carried on business dealings with the appellant defendant.
It appears that the appellant defendant did number receive payment from the clients of the respondent and hence did number release the documents to them.
Aggrieved thereby, the defendant appellant filed an intra Court appeal before the High Court which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the respondent sent four Bills of Exchange, all dated 9th September, 1998 in favour of the appellant Bank for an amount of US 8,19,198.75.
Again on 21st September, 1998, the respondent sent another set of documents together with Bills of Exchange to the appellant Bank for the amount of US 11,12,428.54 for companylection from the Indian clients of companystituent of the respondent.
By the said judgment, which is impugned herein, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant defendant thereby upholding the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.
In order to adjudicate the companytroversy between the parties, at the outset it is necessary to cull out the facts of the case to the extent of deciding the dispute before us.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
The respondent plaintiff in turn forwarded those documents to the appellant defendant on the companydition of releasing them to the Indian clients of its companystituent against payment.
This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9th October, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
There was numberconsideration to the appellant Bank and merely the telex fax messages do number companystitute a written companytract between the parties.
The learned Trial Judge fixed the liability on the appellant defendant and made absolute the summons for judgment awarding interest 9.75 p.a.
415 of 2014 arising out of Summons for Judgment No.
