IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendants to pay interest on delayed payment as per the terms of UCP-600, specifically citing Article 14(6) and Article 16(iii).

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for a decree of US$ 70,243 or the Indian equivalent thereof being Rs.42,14,580/-, along with an interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, namely, Phoenix Overseas Ltd., having its registered office at 13B, Bidhan Sarani, Chanda Plaza (4th Floor), Kolkata – 700006, Police Station – Amherst Street. However, the name of the plaintiff Company was changed from Phoenix Overseas Pvt. Ltd. to Phoenix Overseas Ltd. vide fresh certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name on conversion to Public Limited Company on November 14, 2011.

3. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of inter alia, exports of diverse commodities and is one of the leading exporters of various Agricultural Commodities, environment friendly packing materials (laminated bags/shopping bags etc.) and handicrafts to different countries in the world from India.

4. The plaintiff is a Trading House recognized by the Government of India and also members of FIEO, APEDDA and SPICES BOARD.

5. The defendant no.1 is the Bangladesh Krishi Bank, owned by the Bangladesh Government, having its head office at 83-85, Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka – 1000, Bangladesh, and happens to be one of the leading banks in Bangladesh dealing in Agricultural Commodities. The defendant no. 2 is the Managing Director of defendant no.1. The defendant no. 3 is one of the branch of the Bangladesh Krishi Bank, the proforma defendant no. 5 is the Bank of India, Kolkata Mid Corporate Branch, who negotiated the documents under Letters of Credits and was also the Plaintiff’s banker and the defendant no. 4, M/s. SMAH Poultry Farm & Feeds Ltd. Company, which is situated at Bangladesh.

6. On or about 29th March, 2011, the representative of defendant no.4 being SMAH Poultry Farm and Feeds Ltd approached the plaintiff at 13B, Bidhan Sarani, Chanda Plaza (4th Floor), Kolkata – 700006 for purchasing substantial amount of agricultural products on daily basis and it was also mentioned by the representatives of the defendant no.4 that the payments under supplies to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant no.4 would be against irrevocable letters of credit.

7. Pursuant to such agreement between the parties, it was agreed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff would supply the agricultural products of Indian origin to the defendant No.4 only against irrevocable letters of credit covering the amount of each supply to be caused to be opened through their bank by the defendant No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff by issuance of Six (6) proforma invoices offered to export commodities to the defendant no.4 and such invoices were accepted by the defendant no.4 by applying to defendant no.3 for opening of Letters of Credit and defendant no. 3 issued a total number of Six (6) Letters of Credits during the period from 31st March, 2011 to 25th August, 2011.

9. The advising bank through which the Letters of Credit were advised to the plaintiff was ICICI Bank Limited, Kolkata branch having its office at Rasoi Court, 20, Sir, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001.

10. It is submitted by the Plaintiff that upon receipt of the said Letters of Credit, the Plaintiff had exported agricultural products of agreed specifications to the orders of defendant no.3 and fulfilled all its obligations as per the terms and conditions of the Letters of Credit.

11. As per the submissions made by the Plaintiff, during the period of 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, the defendant no.3, deliberately, abnormally, wrongfully and illegally failed, delayed, refused and neglected to release the payment of the plaintiff from 23 days to 181 days, even after allowing grace period of 25 days, without any cogent reason.

12. The Plaintiff have repeatedly made requests to the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and several e-mails and letters were sent regarding the delay of payment by the defen