( 1 ) THE Standard Chartered Bank filed a suit under the provisions of order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of different amounts against different defendant-companies. In Summary Suit no. 1339 of 2006 filed against Neolite Ploymer Industries Pvt Ltd the bank claimed US $ 502,437. 00 being the principal amount of two Bills of Exchange which are annexed to the plaint at Exhibits B1 and B2 respectively along with the interest of US $ 267,226. 03 being calculated at the rate of 18% p. a. from the due date until institution of the suit and also claimed same interest till realisation.

( 2 ) IN terms of the averments made in the plaint, the Bank pleaded that ransat PLC, a company incorporated under the Laws of England and Wales with its office at 137, Regent Street, London, W14 7ld united Kingdom, drew two bills of exchange on the defendant company in respect of certain supplies made by Ransat to the defendants. Each bill was payable 60 days after the acceptance of the order of the Bank. Each bill, when presented, was accepted by the defendant company in the suit. However, when presented for payment, the bill was dishonoured. The details of the two bills are as follows: no of the bill Due date Amount of the bill rplc PC 3952 April 28,2003 US $ 148,297. 50 rplc PC 3961 May 20, 2003 US $ 354,139/50

( 3 ) THE Bank had presented the bills through their A. B. N. Amro Bank, n. V Sakhar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, which Bank acted as the collecting bank, and finally on 17th June 2005, each bill was caused to be protested through one D. D. Damodar, Notary, union of India. In this manner the defendant company, after accepting the bills, became unconditionally liable to pay to the Bank the principal amount of each bill, which was not paid. Vide letter dated 22nd november, 2005, through its advocates, the Bank called upon the defendant company to make payment of the principal amount with interest. Another notice dated 7th April 2006 was sent to the defendant company which was returned, according to the Bank, with postal remarks "left, addressee not known". Having failed to recover its money, the Bank instituted this suit under the provisions of Order 37 of C. P. C. for recovery of the amounts.

( 4 ) AN application for leave to defend was filed by the defendant in response to the summons for judgment. The defendant company took the defence that the suit under the provisions of Order 37 of C. P. C. was not maintainable as also that the two bills of exchange had not been stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamps act, 1899. The deficiency in the stamping was not curable and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed on that count alone. The defendant company also took a plea that the bills were not presented for acceptance through ABN Amro Bank, nor were the bills protested and they being foreign bills of exchange, have to be compulsorily noted and/or protested. This action of the Bank is stated to be in violation of section 51 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 read with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and thus the summary suit was stated to be not maintainable. Another ground taken by the defendant company for unconditional leave to defend was that no notice of dishonour was given and the plaintiff Bank could not claim any interest.

( 5 ) ANOTHER suit, being Summary Suit No 1692 of 2006, was filed by the bank under Order 37 of C. P. C. against Hazel Mercantile Ltd for recovery of US $ 64,800. 00 with interest on the basis of a bill of exchange which was accepted by the defendant company. The distinguishing feature of this suit was that according to the Bank the bill was payable on order of Ransat at 90 days from the date of acceptance and vide assignment deed dated 9th March 2006 the debt and all other rights and securities under the said bill of exchange no. RPLC-TA 3968/9 dated March 8, 2003, were assigned to the plaintiff Bank. The bill, when presented for