JUDGMENT :

G.S.SISTANI, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 filed by the appellant impugning the judgment dated 20.01.2017 by which a Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the application seeking leave to defend and has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.

2. The brief facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that M/s. Millennium Wires Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘buyer’) is dealing in the manufacturing and trade of Continuous Cast Copper Wire Rod and ‘EC Grade, Hard Drawn Copper’ for manufacturing of copper wire. The buyer was willing to import Continuous Cast Copper Wire Rod for trading purposes and accordingly, it entered into an Association Agreement on 02.12.2011 with State Trading Corporation (‘STC’). The said agreement envisaged the import of the goods from Synergic Industrial Materials and Services Pvt. Ltd. and Synergic Industrial Material Services Malaysia (‘Synergy’/‘seller’). The aforesaid transaction was based on the opening of Letters of Credit (LCs) in favour of the seller through Malayan Banking Berhad, the respondent bank herein, on the request of the buyer. Four LCs were issued by the appellant at the instance of STC. As per the terms and conditions of the LCs, after shipment of the goods from the port at Malaysia, the seller was to send across the shipment documents to STC via appellant through the banking channel and thereafter, the said shipment documents were to be sent by the seller through the respondent to the appellant, which had opened the LCs on behalf of the STC. The said documents then were to be sent to STC by the appellant for acceptance, which were to be sent to the buyer for verification and their acceptance. After receiving acceptance from the buyer, STC was to convey the same to the appellants who would send the acceptance to the respondent. It is the case of the appellant that payment as per the terms of the LCs had to be made after 90 days from the date of bill of lading.

3. As per the appeal, on 17.12.2011, STC received the documents of the first shipment for acceptance of goods which, as per the shipment documents presented by the seller to the respondent for payment and thereafter received by the appellant, were allegedly shipped on 08.12.2011. The documents, prima facie, were in order and showed that the goods were shipped and STC, after receiving acceptance from the buyer, in good faith gave its acceptance to the appellant who forwarded the same to the respondent.

4. On 31.12.2011, STC received the documents of the other shipments, which were submitted by Mr. Rajiv Singh, MD of the seller to the respondent. Consequently, STC gave its acceptance for two more shipments after receiving the acceptance from the buyer and as per the terms and conditions, the payment had to be made. The goods were to reach India within 25 to 30 days after the date of shipment. STC repeatedly sought information about the shipped orders from the shipping company’s local agent, namely, M/s. Expo Freight Pvt. Ltd., having its local office in Ludhiana, but the local agent failed to give any information about the shipment orders and STC was asked to find out from the exporter as no containers as per the shipment documents were traceable in India. On 19.01.2012, STC wrote a letter to the agent in India seeking information about the consignment so that the necessary arrangements for clearance and delivery could be made. On 23.01.2012, simultaneously the STC contacted Mr. Rakesh Khanna, MD of the buyer, who had introduced the seller to STC and at whose behest STC was dealing with the seller. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, buyer of the purported imported goods, intimated STC vide its letter dated 23.01.2012 that the seller had played a fraud upon the importer STC. On 08.02.2012, the seller sent a letter to STC whereby it had stated and confirmed that the shipping do