The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious questions raised by the defendants required determination through a full-fledged trial, and the court emphasized the need for a trial to address the issues raised.

REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1.The present application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1 in the sum of Rs.25,18,610/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only) with pendente lite and future interest on the admissions made by the said defendant as mentioned in paragraph 23 of the present application.

2.The case of the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs state has been admitted by the defendant No.1 in their written statement, is that in or about August, 2005,an oral agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant No.2 agreed to buy a consignment of Mulbury Silk Fabric of Chinese origin to be shipped from Shanghai in China to New Delhi in India. Pursuant to the said agreement, the defendant No.3 at the instance of the plaintiffs drew a Bill of Exchange on the defendants No.1 and 2, payable within sixty days from the date of Bill of Lading for a sum of USD 44,846.10 only (subsequently amended on 22.09.2005 so as to be payable within seventy five days from the Bill of Lading date). It was a term of the said Bill of Exchange that documents could be released only if duly avalised/co-accepted by the defendant No.1. In course of time, the defendant No.3–Indian Overseas Bank acting on the instructions of the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant No.1 the Bill of Lading and other documents by a covering letter dated 08.09.2005.

3. In or about September, 2005, the goods arrived at the destination at New Delhi and the defendant No.1 allowed the defendant No.2 to remove the said goods. Thereupon, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant No.1 to make payment against the aforesaid Bill of Exchange, but it was alleged by the defendant No.1 that it had no obligation to make payment thereunder. The defendant No.1 having failed to make the payment, the present suit was filed for recovery of USD 56,281.

4. Written statements were filed by the defendants No.1 to 3. The present application has been filed on the basis of three admissions allegedly made by the defendant No.1 in its written statement. According to the plaintiffs, the said three admissions are as follows:

.(i)The defendant No.1 along with its written statement has filed a letter dated 19.10.2005 written by the defendant No.2 to the defendant No.1, whereby the defendant No.2 had authorised the defendant No.1 to debit its account towards payment of the Bill of Exchange in respect of which the present suit has been filed. According to the plaintiffs, the said letter is a clear cut and unconditional acknowledgment of the debt and claim of the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2.

.(ii)The defendant No.1, namely, ICICI Bank has filed an O.A. against the defendant No.2 for the recovery of the amount in respect of the transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2, as the defendant No.1 which was the collecting bank “after duly accepting and avalising the documents had released the goods to the defendant No.2”. The said case is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

(iii)The defendant No.1 has along with the said O.A. filed a letter dated 15.02.2006 sent by it to the defendant No.2 claiming the amount, wherein the defendant No.1 specifically stated and admitted as under:

“You are very well aware that this is an international transaction and collecting bank will have to make the payment on the date of maturity or will have to return the documents to the drawer if the payment is not received from the drawee. You would definitely appreciate that the original documents were given to you on the basis of your commitment and assurance that you will make the payment on the date of maturity positively.”

5. Mr. Anil Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has urged that the defendant No.1 having filed a case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document