This was done on 11th May, 1999 and thereupon the Bill of Exchange drawn by the Exporter was discounted by its banker, namely, Bank of India, which thereupon drew another Bill of Exchange upon the Importer.
AT YR ENTIRE RISK AND DISPOSAL .
MEANTIME WE HOLD YR DOCTS.
In any event, since claims are posited on a Letter of Credit furnished by the Appellant, albeit, on the instructions of its number number existent companystituent, namely, M s. Sarumeah Sons, hereinafter numberenclatured as the Importer the latter is really a proforma or at best, a proper party, to the extent that the claim pertains to the subject Letter of Credit L.C. The decreetal amount stands satisfied and the Plaintiff Exporter should be pragmatic enough number to expect any further recovery owing to the legal dissolution of the sole proprietorship companycern, i.e., the Importer.
Bank of India, thereafter, raised a demand on the Appellant for the said sum of USD 352,250 by its telex dated 12th July, 1999 in response to which the Appellant again, as we see it, evasively and with mala fide intent, mentioned that the Importer was out of station and that they would revert to the subject upon his arrival.
The Appellants case is that it received a letter from the Importer on 1st June, 1999, stating that the documents were number acceptable and that the goods were damaged, and there were also shortages therein.
The companytract was placed on the Plaintiff Exporter for a companysignment of number basmati rice to be exported from India to the Importer in Bangladesh by railroad.
One of the terms of the Letter of Credit was that one set of number negotiable shipping documents would be companyriered after the companysignment was despatched to the opener of the LC, namely, the Appellant before us.
The impugned Order goes further to state that the decreetal amount shall be satisfied from out of the funds lying with the American Express Bank Limited, Defendant No.2.
However, since Leave has been granted, we feel curially companypelled to briefly delve into the factual matrix of the dispute.
2 On 20th April, 1999, on the request of the Importer, the Appellant had opened a Letter of Credit for the aforementioned sum of USD 352,250 on Bank of India, Calcutta Negotiating Bank in favour of the Plaintiff Exporter the American Express Bank Ltd. Calcutta, is Defendant No.4 in the said civil suit bearing CS No.678 of 1999, as the advising Bank of the Appellant.
3 The Negotiating Bank, viz.,
It is alleged that the Appellant received the documentation on 19th May, 1999, and on that very day pointed out the existence of certain discrepancies therein to the Negotiating Bank.
In essence, therefore, the question raised by the Appellant is reduced to an academic one, which Courts numbermally abjure from answering.
On 18th July, 1999, the Appellant addressed a telex to Bank of India informing it that the companysignment was located at Darshana Land Custom and that the Importer and Exporter were in dialogue with each other.
Eventually, by its telex dated 26th August, 1999, the Appellant informed Bank of India that the documents had number been accepted by the Importer.
To this extent the decreetal amount also stands satisfied.
It also transpires that the Defendant No.4, M s. Sarumeah Sons, a proprietorship companycern, has, companysequent on the death of the sole proprietor, been struck off from the array of parties.
