( 1 ) AT the conclusion of the arguments I pronounced the judgment. I dismissed the application with costs. Now I give my reasons for the decision.

( 2 ) THIS is an application for stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are the facts. The plaintiff Grindlays Bank Limited has instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 24,29,589. 90 against six defendants, namely, (1) Hindustan Embroidery Mills Private Limited (the Company) (2) Sardar Gurdial Singh Uppal. (3) Sardar Inder Singh Uppal, (4) Sardar Iqbal Singh Uppal. (5) Sardar Harkishan Singh Uppal and (6) Sardar Man Mohan Singh Uppal. Defendant No. 1 is a company and defendants 2 to 6 are its directors. The suit is based on an overdraft facility which the bank had given to the defendants. The defendants executed letter of hypothecation and continuing security on all its existing and future stocks etc. It is alleged that under the letter of. hypothecation the bank has a right to take possession of the hypothecated goods and to sell the same in the event of the defendants failure to make payment on demand of the bank dues. It is claimed by the bank that on the date of the institution of the suit a sum of Rs. 24,29,589. 90 was due from the defendants. This amount comprises of a sum of Rs. 15,24,740. 15 being the debt outstanding in the company s account on 30-11-1971 and which amount was duly certified and acknowledged by the defendants as being due and payable to the bank. A sum of Rs. 81,493. 00 is claimed on account of the payment which the bank had to make to the Company s workmen and which the defendants in their letter of 23-5-1975 agreed to pay. The rest of the amount is claimed on account of interest. It is alleged that defendants 2 to 6 are jointly and severally liable with the company. defendant No. 1, to make payment of the suit amount.

( 3 ) THE bank has prayed for the following reliefs :

(I) A decree for Rs. 24,29,589. 90 against the defendants with future interest: (ii) that the pledged goods and the pledged machines be sold by public auction and the sale proceeds thereof be paid over to the bank towards the decretal amount. This suit was brought on 5-4-1977 in this Court.

( 4 ) PRIOR to this suit the company, Hindustan Embroidery Mills Private Ltd. (Which is defendant No. 1 in Delhi suit), instituted two suits in Amritsar Courts. One was suit No. 33/76 filed on 26-7-1976. The other was suit No. 23/77 filed on 2-3-1977. It is on the basis of these two suits pending in Amritsar Courts that the defendants claim stay of Delhi suit.

( 5 ) IN order to understand the controversy between the parties it is necessary to see the nature and scope of Amritsar suits. Suit No. 33 of 1976 is essentially a suit for mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction against the bank. The bank threatened to sell the goods and machines which had been pledged by the company in its favour. They issued a notice to the Company on 11-6-1976 calling upon them to pay the amount failing which the bank intimated them that they will sell the hypothecated property. The company thereupon brought the suit asking for a prohibitory injunction against the bank not to sell the hypothecated property. The threatened sale by the bank was the reason for bringing the suit. After the bank had instituted its suit in this court counsel for the bank stated before the Punjab High Court that the bank will not sell the hypothecated goods except under the orders of the Delhi High Court. In view of this position this suit has lost all importance, though even now it is pending and is being tried in the Amritsar Court.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the defendants mainly relies on the second suit in the Amritsar Court and it is because of that suit that he says that the Delhi suit ought to be stayed. The second suit in Amritsar Court (Suit No. 23 of 1977) is a suit for damages brought by the company against the bank. It is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of damages which the company stated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document