Back
2001 Supreme(Del) 1002
High Court Of Delhi
IMPRESSIONI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 486 of 1999
Decided On : 08/07/2001
ALI ANURAG AGRAWAL, Maninder Kaur, V.K.AGARWAL
Headnote:Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 -Section 17 — Recovery — Bank filed a recovery suit in DRT — Opposite party filed a recovery suit in the Civil Court — By virtue of amendment jurisdiction of DRT widened to entertain counter-claim, set-off or adjustment or cross suit — Present suit in the Court is in the nature of adjustment — Suit pending in the Civil Court transferred to DRT for trial.
Held:
The facts of the present case reveal that the appellants suit against the respondent bank cannot be treated as a counter claim. All that the appellants say in the suit is that on proper accounts being taken between the parties, appellant would not be liable to pay the amount claimed by the respondent bank in its suit before the Tribunal. The pleas taken by the appellant in the present suit are nothing else but their defense to the suit of the respondent herein before the Tribunal. Learned Trial Court was right in holding that the present suit could not be treated as a counter claim to the banks suit before the Tribunal. We, however, feel that in this view of the matter, the present being a suit raising a plea of adjustment, in order to wipe off or reduce the banks claim, was liable to be transferred to the Tribunal for trial even prior to the amendment in the Act.
(August 7, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125250
2001-DLT-93-861 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-409
IMPRESSIONI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. Bank of Baroda
SHARDA AGGARWAL
( 1 ) THE appellant company has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10/2/1999 by Additional District Judge dismissing the appellant s suit for recovery of Rs. 4 ,14,865. 00.
( 2 ) THE appellant company was allowed the Foreign bill Purchase (FBP) and Packing Credit Facility (PCF) by the respondent bank to the extent of Rs;3 lakhs each. According to the appellants, the terms and conditions were not disclosed by the respondent, bank at the time of granting of facilities and the appellant company was made to sign the unfilled bank documents. The appellant company had deposited with the respondent bank two bills (i) bill No. 90 D (502473) for US $ 21,467; and (ii) bill No. 91 C (503282) for GBP 13,500. They claimed that bill No. 90-D was discharged under two bank drafts and the balance, if any, was required to be discharged from the margin money lying with the respondent bank. According to them, the bank wrongfully crystalised bill No. 90-D before the date of maturity prescribed by the Reserve bank of India Guidelines. As a consequence, the bank wrongfully charged excess amount of Rs. 1,16,198. 00 on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange rate. Likewise, the export bill No. 91-C was discharged by the appellants under Letter of Credit, but the said bill was not purchased by the respondent bank but was sent for collection. The demand draft for US$ 2630 was given to the bank under Foreign Bill Purchase facility which was allegedly not lodged for collection in time and when it was lodged for collection, it was lodged in the wrong branch of the bank. In this respect, the respondent debited the account of the appellant for a sum of rs. 61,785. 00 towards some cancellation charges against some forward contract alleged to have been booked by the appellant company. The appellants also claimed to have deposited a bank draft of Rs-41,104. 00 towards duty draw back. They also claimed the deposit of further amounts of Rs. 50,000. 00 on 6/5/1992 and Rs. 49,8487. 00 on 24/3/1993. The claim of the appellants in the suit is that the bank,refused to settle the accounts and filed a false recovery suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The. titled deeds of property No. 2-C/25, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, were alleged to be handed over to the bank for the purposes of valuation and were offered as security, which was not accepted by the bank. Thus, appellants claimed recovery against the bank to the tune of Rs. 4,14,865. 00 and for mandatory injunction for return of,original title deeds of the property.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT bank in the written statement alleged that the Foreign Bill Purchase Facility was to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs whereas the Packing Credit Facility was extended to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. All the terms and conditions were disclosed to the appellants and the documents were duly signed. Two export bills have been admitted. Further it is denied that the export bill no. 90~d was discharged by two bank drafts by the appellants. Any margin money lying with the bank was als o denied. Draft of US$ 2630 was returned unpaid. It was not sent for collection in time at the request of the managing Director of the appellant company for fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. The bank held k. he appellants liable. Various amounts as alleged by the appellants were intact correctly debited to their account. The respondent bank had raised preliminary objection that with regard to the Foreign Bill Purchase facility and Packing Credit, Facility provided to the appellants, the bank had already filed a suit for recovery before the Tribunal where the appellants had filed their written statement and in view of the pendency of the said suit before the Tribunal, the present suit filed by the-appellant was not maintainable. The pl
