JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---In the summary suit in which the present Summons for judgment has been instituted, the claim of the plaintiff is for a decree in the sum of Pound Sterling 1,21,115.63 with further interest at 18% per annum of the principal amount of Pound Sterling 88,284.64. At the prevailing rate of exchange when the suit came to be instituted, the claim has been valued at Rs. 84,78,094/-. The claim in the suit is based on three Bills of Exchange drawn by the plaintiff and accepted by the first defendant. The first defendant is a partnership firm of which the second to fifth defendants are partners.

2. The plaintiff supplied to the first defendant three consignments of Bronze Powder under three invoices these being (i) an invoice dated 21st March, 1996 for Pound Sterling 38,970/-, (ii) an invoice dated 11th April, 1996 for Pound Sterling 38,970 and (iii) an invoice dated 1st May, 1996 for Pound Sterling 30,344/-. The plaintiff drew three Bills of Exchange which were duly accepted by the first defendant, these being as follows :

(a) Bill of Exchange dated 11th April, 1996 in the sum of Pound Sterling 38,970.00;

(b) Bill of Exchange dated 20th May, 1996 in the sum of Pound Sterling 38, 970.00; and

(c) Bill of Exchange dated 30th May, 1996, in the sum of Pound Sterling 30,344.64.

The Bills of Exchange dated 11th April, 1996 and 20th May, 1996 were drawn payable at sight, while the Bill of Exchange dated 30th May, 1996 was payable at "70 days sight from E.T.A." (Estimated Time of Arrival of the goods). The E.T.A. is described as 11-6-1996.

3. By its Fax message dated 23rd May 1996, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to relax the payment terms of the first two Bills of Exchange drawn at sight by allowing at least 60 days interest free credit from the date of clearance/delivery of the consignments. Acting on this request, the plaintiff addressed a communication dated 24th May, 1996 to its bankers to change the collection terms from "sight" to "70 days sight from E.T.A.", which was duly intimated to the first defendant.

4. As stated earlier, the three Bills of Exchange were accepted by the first defendant. These Bills of Exchange were forwarded by the plaintiff through its bankers to the first defendant's bankers, Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. for collection and negotiation. After the Bills of Exchange were accepted by the first defendant, documents relating to the three consignments are stated to have been released to the first defendant which in turn cleared the consignments on arrival.

5. On the due dates of the three Bills of Exchange 5th July, 1996, 27th July, 1996 and 20th August, 1996, the corresponding E.T.As. being 27th April, 1996, 18th May, 1996 and 11th June, 1996, no payment was forthcoming. The first defendant made a part payment of the sum of Pound Sterling 20,000/- on 8th May, 1998. No further payments were made by the first defendant and the Bills of Exchange were returned by the Bank to the plaintiff unpaid. The three Bills of Exchange were noted and protested and on 5th October, 1998, the plaintiff addressed an Advocate's notices to the defendants calling upon them to repay the principal sum of Pound Sterling 88,284/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendants having failed to make payment to the plaintiff, a summary suit came to be instituted by the plaintiff on 19th January, 1999.

6. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants in which, inter alia, the following defences have been raised :

(1) The Bills of Exchange do not provide for payment of any interest :

(2) A suit has not been filed for the recovery of an amount which is admitted and ascertained ;

(3) The Bills of Exchange are inadmissible since they are not properly stamped;

(4) The plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants since the Bills of Exchange were negotiated by the plaintiff in favour of the Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd; and

(5) The Bills of Exchange were not prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document