Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery, rendition of accounts, and delivery by the defendant of: list of unpaid instruments; computers; floppies; paid instruments in original; and copies of returns of different branches of the defendant. The relief of delivery is essentially sought against the defendant with respect to details of paid and unpaid refund orders issued qua unsuccessful applicants of the public issue of shares of the plaintiff.

1.1 The core issue in the suit is essentially the plaintiff's grievance that it had appointed the defendant through the aegis of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `BCCI') as the banker for handling refund orders, in respect of over-subscribed public issue of equity shares, made by it, in January, 1990. A mandate which, according to the plaintiff, required the defendant to fully account for the money received for the said purpose by the defendant. The plaintiff has sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,73,072/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 03.04.1997; and rendition of accounts with respect to the amounts actually disbursed; consequential repayments of amounts so ascertained; and also delivery of documents, which would enable it to ascertain the said information.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

2. In this context, it would be necessary to note the plaintiff's allegations against the defendant. On 11.01.1990 the plaintiff issued a prospectus for a public issue of equity shares. It is alleged that on 12.03.1990, the Board of Directors of the plaintiff passed a resolution appointing the BCCI as its bankers for handling refund orders in respect of over-subscribed public issue. Consequently, on 13.03.1990 the plaintiff sent a formal letter to the BCCI confirming their appointment as the Refund Banker, in respect of its public issue which, closed on 15.02.1990. The necessary application form, copy of the resolution, and a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association were enclosed therewith. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant in turn accepted the engagement, under BCCI, to effectuate the functions of the Refund Banker, which were essentially entrusted to BCCI, in respect of areas, other than Bombay (now Mumbai). The basic premise of the defendant's engagement was that the 100% funding would be provided by the plaintiff; coupled with an obligation to reconcile statements of both paid and unpaid refund orders. Accordingly, the plaintiff provided funds to BCCI in the sum of Rs. 11,89,54,800/-, out of which, BCCI transferred a sum of Rs. 10.33 crores to the defendant, on 24.04.1990. It is, however, averred by the plaintiff that it had remitted, apart from the above, additional funds to the defendants, the details of which are as follows:

Amount (Rs.) Date of Remission

5,00,000/- 12.09.1990

3,00,000/- 01.07.1991

1,60,000/- 07.03.1992

12,800/- 21.06.1993

2.1 Well after the closure of the public issue, the plaintiff vide letter dated 24.12.1990 (Ex. PW1/8) informed the defendant that the net unpaid outstanding balance after reconciliation which appeared against in the defendant's account, in its books, was a sum of Rs. 5,30,006/-. This, according to the plaintiff, was a figure which had been arrived at after adjusting duplicate refund orders issued by them to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to issue a cheque in the sum of Rs. 5,30,006/- so that the account could be finally settled.

2.2 By a further communication dated 22.06.1991, the plaintiff, it appears, once again called upon the defendant to close the refund order account, and issue to it, an upto date statement of account. In addition to this, a demand was made that the amount standing to the plaintiff's credit be remitted to it. The plaintiff returned the unused cheque leaves in respect of the said account, which was in its possession.

2.3 By a further communication dated 05.01.1995 (Ex. PW1/11), the plaintiff reitera