Back
High Court Of Delhi
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
GLAVKOSMOS - Respondent
Decided On : 10/01/1998
BANKING - INJUNCTION - DOUBLE PAYMENT - JURISDICTION - SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY - LIMITATION - INTEREST - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - Prima facie case for grant of injunction - Plaintiff bank made double payment to defendant No.1 - Defendant No.1 admitted receipt of payment - Balance of convenience in favor of plaintiff - Injunction granted restraining defendant No.1 from transferring, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds lying in its account with defendant No.2 - Plaintiff directed to receive the amount from ISRO and keep it with it - Plaintiff to file an affidavit giving an undertaking to pay the amount to defendant No.1 with interest in the event of defendant No.1 succeeding in the suit.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, State Bank of India, filed a suit claiming a decree for Rs. 6,98,24,219.12, interest @ 24% per annum till the realization of the amount, and costs of the suit. The plaintiff had filed I.A. 11560/96 and I.A. 12336/96 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the defendants from transferring, withdrawing, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds of the defendant No.1 lying in the account of defendant No.1 with defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 filed a reply to the I.A. and the plaintiff filed a rejoinder. The defendant No.1 filed I.A. 1494/97 for vacating the ad-interim orders passed on 20.11.1996 and 9.12.1996. The plaintiff filed a reply to this I.A. These I.As were heard at length.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie strong case for the grant of injunction. The court also found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that instead of granting injunction, the plaintiff should be directed to receive the amount from ISRO and keep it with it. The court also directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit giving an undertaking that in the event of the defendant No.1 succeeding in the suit, the plaintiff would pay the amount received by it from ISRO to the defendant No.1 with interest.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunction based on the following factors: * The plaintiff had filed a suit claiming a decree for Rs. 6,98,24,219.12, interest @ 24% per annum till the realization of the amount, and costs of the suit. * The plaintiff had filed I.A. 11560/96 and I.A. 12336/96 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the defendants from transferring, withdrawing, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds of the defendant No.1 lying in the account of defendant No.1 with defendant No.2. * The defendant No.1 had filed a reply to the I.A. and the plaintiff had filed a rejoinder. * The defendant No.1 had filed I.A. 1494/97 for vacating the ad-interim orders passed on 20.11.1996 and 9.12.1996. * The plaintiff had filed a reply to this I.A. * These I.As were heard at length.
Final Decision: The court directed the plaintiff to receive the amount from ISRO and keep it with it. The court also directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit giving an undertaking that in the event of the defendant No.1 succeeding in the suit, the plaintiff would pay the amount received by it from ISRO to the defendant No.1 with interest.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff. State Bank of India, has filed the suit claiming the following reliefs :
" (A) A decree for Rs. 6,98,24,219. 12 (Rupees Six crores ninety eight lakhs twenty four thousand two hundred nineteen and twelve paise only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1; (b) Grant pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till the realisation of the amount against the defendants; (e) Costs of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. "theplaintwaspresentedon2. 11. 1996. 1nl. A. 11560/96underorder39,rulesland 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:
"it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass ex-parte ad-interim orders, thereby,restraining the defendants No. I and 2 from transferring, withdrawing, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds of the defendant No.-1 lying in the account of defendants No. I with the defendant No. 2. "the first defendant had filed reply to this I. A. The plaintiff filed another I. A. 12336/ 96 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for the following reliefs :
"it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass ex-parte and-interim orders, thereby, restraining Mr. G. Perumal, Project Director, GSLV, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, ISRO Post, Thumba, Trivandrum from transferring, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds of Glavkosmos lyingwith ISROto the extent of Rs. 6,98,24,219. 12 (Rupees six hundred ninety eight lakhs twenty four thousand two hundred nineteen and paisa twelve only ). "on 20. 11. 1996 this Court passed an ad-interim order in I. A. 11560/96 and the same is as follows:
"issue notices to the defendants returnable on 11. 4. 1997. 1 have gone through the plaint and application and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a primafacie strong case for injunction. There shall be an injunction restraining defendants1 and 2 from transferring, withdrawing, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds of defendant I lying in the account of defendant I with defendant No. 2 until further orders. Compliance of Order 39, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code be made within three days. " In I. A. 12336/96 on 9. 12. 1996 this Court passed the following order :
"this is an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC for injunction. Issue notices to the defendants returnable on 11. 4. 1997. I have gone through the petition and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case for injunction. There shall be an injunction restraining Mr. G. Perumal, Project Director, GSLV, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, ISRO Post, Thumba, Trivandrum from transferring, debiting or otherwise partingwith the funds of Glavkosmos lyingwith ISRO to the extent of Rs. 6,98,24,219. 12 until further orders. Dasti on payment of necessary charges. "the first defendant filed reply to this I. A. and the plaintiff filed rejoinder.
( 2 ) ON 12. 2. 1997 the first defendant filed I. A. 1494/97 for vacating the adinterim orders passed on 20. 11. 1996 and 9. 12. 1996 which had been extracted above. The plaintiff filed reply to this I. A. These are the I. As which were heard at length and these I. As are to be disposed of by this order.
( 3 ) THE matter was argued covering a very wide ground and, therefore, it has become necessary to give briefly the case of the parties as reflected in the pleadings.
( 4 ) THE case set out in the plaint could be tersely given in the following words. The first defendant who is having its office in Moscow is a specialist in the space department in the filed of satellite technology. The ISRO Satellite Centre, Bangalore had entered into a contract with the first defendant for the purpose of providing facilities and to have the technological knowledge of Indian Engineers and for lau
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
