JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for decree for cancellation of the letter dated 20th November, 2017 upon the same being adjudged null and void, perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its men, servants and agents from giving any or further effects or taking any steps pursuant to the letter dated 20th November, 2017, decree for mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to accept counter guarantee from Axis Bank Limited for the value of the outstanding letters of Credit and bank guarantee, decree for Rs.52,47,189.50/-and other reliefs.

2. The plaintiff maintains a current account with the defendant bearing No. 11704011000085. The plaintiff availed banking facilities from the defendant in the form of cash credit, letter of credit and bank guarantee. The bank has granted the said facilities for the period of one year from the date of issuance of sanction letter. The defendant has granted cash credit cum Inland letter of credit for a sum of Rs. 2 Crores and bank guarantee of Rs. 30 Crores. In the year 2015, when the plaintiff had applied for loan, the turnover of the plaintiff was Rs. 28.27 crores and its credit rating by CRISIL was BBB+. During the year 2015-2016, the turnover of the plaintiff increased to Rs. 88.43 crores and its credit rating enhanced to A-.

3. On 28th January, 2016, the plaintiff had applied for enhancement of the existing cash credit limit of Rs. 5 crore and bank guarantee limit to Rs. 40 Crores with interchangeable limit of up to 50% from cash credit to bank guarantee. On 7th October, 2016, the defendant had forwarded its sanction letter dated 12th September, 2016 to the plaintiff and the same was received by the plaintiff on 10th October, 2016 wherein the existing facilities was extended for a further period of one year. The defendant did not accept the plaintiff’s proposal for enhancement of the facilities and reduction of bank charges.

4. As the facilities offered by the defendant were not acceptable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff by a letter dated 7th October, 2016 informed the defendant that credit facilities are not acceptable to the plaintiff and the plaintiff requested the defendant to review its offer by considering the financial status of the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff constrained to approach other banks. On 6th March, 2017, the defendant had forwarded a fresh sanction letter dated 20th February, 2017, containing terms of grant of credit facilities on and from 20th February, 2017. Again the plaintiff had informed the defendant that the terms proposed by the letter dated 20th February, 2017 were not acceptable to them. The defendant informed the plaintiff the proposed terms could be negotiated but the plaintiff should sign and return the acknowledgement portion of the letter dated 6th March, 2017 to the defendant to continue with the existing ad hoc facilities and reconsideration of the plaintiff’s proposal.

5. On 15th March, 2017, one of the Directors of the plaintiff namely Mr. Piyush Jalan resigned from the Board of the plaintiff. By letter dated 24th March, 2017, the plaintiff complained about the delay on the part of the defendant in considering the renewal of sanction and the loss suffered by the plaintiff and requested for reduction in bank charges and interest rates with effect from 1st January, 2016. By a letter dated 4th April, 2017, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to reduction in process fee, bank guarantee commission and rate of interest as the credit rating of the plaintiff by external agency namely CRISIL had improved. The defendant agreed to give the following concession with retrospective effect from 9th September, 2016:-

50% concession in process fees;

Bank Guarantee Commission at 1% per annum (financial) and 0.75 % per annum (performance);

Rate of Interest on Cash Credit 1 year MCLR +1.75% as against applicable 1 year MCLR +3.50%.

6. On 17th April, 2017, the defendant called upon the pla