The bankers of the manufacturer seller would take up the discounted bills and get them rediscounted by the Industrial Bank, prior to their due dates, thus reimbursing themselves with the amounts paid to the manufacturer.
In the Seoni Suit, the second respondent made an application for interim injunction restraining the petitioner from enforcing the rights in respect of the Usance Bills accepted by the second respondent and regarding the guarantees furnished by the fourth respondent.
The fourth respondent is Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation, incorporated under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1957, having its registered office in Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
143/75 in the High Court of Madras against respondents 1 4 herein as also five other defen dants, who are partners of the first respondent two of whom had furnished companylateral securities by way of equitable mortgages.
Under an interim order dated April 9, 1976 passed by the High Court of Madras in the said suit, the fourth respondent has deposited with the petitioner herein, a sum of Rs.
The petitioner bank filed suit C.S. No.
The discounting bank would be liable to pay to the Industrial Bank the amounts under the bills on their due dates.
In March 1978, the District Judge, Seoni framed issues in that suit.
10,62,364.57 under the Bills Purchase Account together with interest on the said nine Usance Bills.
A companyparative study of the issues framed in the two suits, one at Seoni and the other at Madras, shows that the principal companymon question arising in each of these two suits, is whether the second respondent and the fourth respondent, herein, are bound to make payment, the second respondent as acceptor of the bills of exchange and the fourth respondent as guarantors for due payment thereunder.
The second respondent, Rajadhiraj Industries Pvt.
There was a supplementary agreement between them on January 24, 1970.
Nirmala Nambiar.
In September 1972, the drawees of the bills second respondent filed suit No.
The discounting bank would numbermally requires the second respondent to accept the bills promissory numberes, after the payment had been guaranteed on his behalf by its banker or the fourth respondent the State Financial Corporation etc.
The defendants in the Seoni suit petitioner and respondent 1 herein filed their written statements denying the allegations and claim made in the plaint.
25,00,000/ .
The facts material to this petition are as under The first respondent, M s. Chemical Construction Company, is a registered partnership having its registered office at No.
14, Milestone Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana and Head Offise at Madras.
The District Judge dismissed that application but on appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted the interim injunction as prayed for.
The third respondent, Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. has its registered office at Bombay and branch offices at other places, including one at Madras.
2,43,376/ was number rediscounted by the petitioner with the third respondent.
The petitioners, it is alleged, acted as discounting bank under the Scheme.
Directing the first respondent herein, and their partners to pay to the plaintiff petitioner the sum of Rs.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition No.
IB/1972 in the District Court, Seoni against the etitioner and the respondents 1, 3 4, seeking a decree for a one lac of rupees against the first respondent on account of damages for breach of companytract b directing the petitioners Indian Overseas Bank and respondents 1 3 jointly and severally to deliver up the guarantee deeds dated November 3, 1970 and February 18, 1971 and the 9 Usance Bills and for cancellation of the same by the Court c permanent injunction restraining the petitioner Bank and respondents 1 3 from enforcing the aforesaid guarantee and the 9 Usance Bills d permanently restraining the guarantor fourth respondent from discharging any liability under the aforesaid guarantees, dated November 3, 1970 and February 18, 1971.
Passing of a mortgage preliminary decree against defendants 5 and 6 therein, two of the partners of the first respondent, herein .
1,28,154.57 under the overdraft account of the first defendant firm together with interest.
2 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This is a petition under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, as amended by Act 104 of 1976 for transfer of suit IB of 1972 instituted in the Court of District Judge, Senoi, Madhya Pradesh by the second respondent herein, against the petitioner and respondents 1, 3 4 to the file of the High Court of Madras Original Side .
26 of 1978.
As a result the impediment in the way of the petitioner for enforcing its rights was removed.
The remaining bill for Rs.
6.99 lacs, which amount was subsequently paid over to the third respondent by the petitioner but numbere of these eight bills was paid by the second respondent to the petitioners on the due dates.
T. Desai, K. Jayaram and K. Ramkumar for the Petitioner.
The first eight of these bills were rediscounted by the petitioner with the third respondent the Industrial Bank for a total sum of Rs.
Leela Nambiar and Smt.
The receiving party in both the suits is the petitioner, herein.
It is represented by its Managing Director, Shri Harishchandra Singhania.
1 D. Bal and Mrs. Jayashree Wad for Respondent No.
In this Madras suit, the petitioner herein, has prayed for the following reliefs Directing the respondents, herein, except respondent 3 , jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff petitioner the sum of Rs.
S. Vishwanatha Rao and A. T. M. Sampath for Respondent No.
It is further alleged that in pursuance of the independent agreement, the petitioner had discounted a total of 9 Usance Bills to the extent of Rs.
It is represented by its partners Shri T. V. P. Nambiar, Shri O. P. Nambiar, Shri O. V. Nambiar, Smt.
The first respondent and the second respondent took advantage of the Scheme, and pursuant to an agreement for supply of materials between the first and second respondents, the fourth respondent executed an irrevocable guarantee on November 3, 1970 and a supplementary guarantee on February 18, 1971 in favour of the petitioner on behalf of second respondent.
According to the allegations in the present petition, the bills of exchange were drawn in Madras and discounted in Madras and also rediscounted with the Industrial Bank and payments were to be made expressly in Madras.
9.42 lacs which were drawn by the first respondent and accepted by the second respondent.
It was alleged in the plaint by the second respondent that acceptance of the bills was vitiated by false representation made by the agent of the petitioner Bank.
The first respondent manufacturer entered into a companytract on November 11, 1969 with the second respondent to erect a plant for manufacture of hydrogenated vegetable oil.
Ltd., has its registered office at Seoni, Madhya Pradesh.
On appeal by the petitioner, this Court by its order, dated March 20, 1974, set aside the High Courts order and vacated the interim injunction as regards the petitioner and the fourth respondent subject to the petitioner undertaking to reimburse the fourth respondent in accordance with the directions of the Court depending upon the result of the Seoni Suit.
