The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order I Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing all persons with a right to relief arising out of the same act or transaction to be joined as plaintiffs in one suit.

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants various amounts claimed by the plaintiffs under an Export Credit Insurance Policy dated 14th June 2008, issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs and State Trading Corporation, the applicant herein. Under the said policy, the defendant had covered the insured in the sum of Rs.175 Crores upon the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The insured mentioned in the said policy is State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., i.e., the applicant and joint insured is Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi, the plaintiff.

2. For the purpose of this chamber summons, brief narration of the facts is required. The applicant operates, inter alia, as an intermediary or a cannalising agent for sale and marketing of gold jewelery and to facilitate and promote its export with foreign buyers. The applicant is a Government of India Enterprise, operating under Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

3. The applicant had entered into an agreement with one Masumi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., whereby Masumi Overseas was to obtain export orders for gold jewelery from prospective buyers in the name of the applicant and the applicant would export the jewelery. Pursuant to this arrangement, documents would be raised upon the applicant and the applicant would get paid based on the bills raised. Pursuant to that arrangement, the applicant approached the plaintiff to discount invoices issued by the applicant in favour of the foreign buyers and to pay 90% of the value invoiced to the applicant following the discounting. The plaintiff agreed and executed a receivables purchase agreement dated 25th March 2008 with the applicant. To cover the risk of the foreign buyers defaulting in payment for the goods supplied by the applicant, the applicant along with the plaintiff approached the defendant for an insurance cover. The defendants, pursuant to insurance policy dated 14th June 2008 agreed to insure the receivables of the applicant/ plaintiff from the foreign buyers. Subject to the terms and conditions of the policy the defendant agreed to indemnify the insured viz., the applicant and the plaintiff, in the event the foreign buyers fail to remit the insured debt. Under the agreement between the plaintiff and the applicant, the plaintiff had a right of recourse against the applicant, inasmuch as, if the foreign buyers did not pay, the plaintiff could look to the applicant to return the money which the plaintiff has paid by discounting the invoice. Under the insurance policy issued by the defendant read with its amendments, it is provided that the plaintiff will have an insurable interest under the policy to the extent that the plaintiff finances specific insured debts. Therefore, the plaintiff will be entitled to claim under the policy only to such amount which the plaintiff has paid to the applicant under the receivables discounting agreement.

4. Since some of the foreign buyers defaulted in making payment of their respective payment the plaintiff lodged a claim with the defendant under the insurance policy on 7th July 2010. The defendant rejected the claim on 23rd August 2010. This suit, therefore, came to be lodged on 9th October 2010. The claim in the suit is for a principal amount of Rs.33,27,95,654.51 with interest thereon at 12% p.a. For the purpose of this chamber summons, we are not considering the merits of the case. The same could be considered at the appropriate stage and time.

5. Before the plaintiff filed the suit, the plaintiff had, under its receivables purchase agreement dated 25th March 2008, also called upon the applicant to pay the amount which is being claimed in the present suit. The applicant did not pay and hence, the plaintiff filed an application under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. Though the applicant initially opposed the claim made by the plaintiff against the applicant in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, the applica