High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.S. Sidhu
State Bank of Bikaner - Appellant
Versus
Firm Ballabh Das and Sons - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 52 of 1984
Decided On : 03/12/1984
{'KEYWORD': 'Contract', 'SUBJECT': 'Cash Credit Pledge Limit Agreement', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 38 Specific Relief Act, 1963', 'Section 2 Specific Relief Act, 1963', 'Section 176 Contract Act'], 'SUMMARY': "The court held that the plaintiff firm's suit for perpetual injunction and specific performance lacked a cause of action. The firm sought to enforce a variation of the cash credit pledge limit agreement, which was challenged as void due to coercion and undue influence. The court found no obligation on the bank to refrain from selling the pledged goods and no valid contract for specific performance. The suit was deemed a recovery of pledged goods, exceeding the court's pecuniary jurisdiction."}
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff firm obtained a cash credit pledge limit from the bank to import goods. The firm failed to pay the debt and redeem the goods, leading to disputes. The firm filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the bank's sale of the goods and specific performance of an alleged oral contract for delivery at a lower rate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the firm's plaint lacked a cause of action for perpetual injunction or specific performance. The firm's challenge to the cash credit pledge limit agreement as void ab initio negated any obligation on the bank to refrain from selling the goods. The alleged oral contract for delivery at a lower rate was not established.
Issues: ["Whether the firm had a cause of action for perpetual injunction against the bank's sale of the pledged goods.", 'Whether the firm had a cause of action for specific performance of an alleged oral contract for delivery of the goods at a lower rate.', 'Whether the court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.']
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the firm's suit lacked a cause of action for perpetual injunction as there was no obligation on the bank to refrain from selling the pledged goods. The firm's challenge to the cash credit pledge limit agreement as void ab initio negated any such obligation. The court also found no valid contract for specific performance, as the alleged oral contract was not established. Furthermore, the court held that the suit was in substance a recovery of pledged goods, exceeding the court's pecuniary jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders of the lower courts, and dismissed the firm's application for temporary injunction.
K.S. Sidhu, J.-The revision petition listed above was allowed on March 8, 1984, with the remarks that reasons for the acceptance will be given later Reasons are given as follows:-Reasons.
1. This petition of revision under Section 115 of the CPC by the defendant in a suit pending before the Additional Munsif Jaipur City, is directed against the appellate order of the Additional Civil Judge. Jaipur city, affirming the order of the Additional Munsif , whereby the latter had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the suit restraining the defendant from selling the goods pledged by the plaintiff with the defendant to a third party and further mandating the defendant in effect to deliver the goods to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 6350/-per metric tonne.
2. The suit in which the extraordinary order of temporary injunction as aforementioned, was passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court, has been filed by M/s. Bal-labhdas and Sons, hereinafter called the firm, against the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, hereinafter called the Bank, for perpetual injunction restraining the Bank from selling the pledged floods to a third party, and. as the relief clause further proceeds, “from refusing to give delivery of the goods to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 6350/-per metric tonne including import duty and miscellaneous charges”, and from committing breach of contract in any other manner, Ignoring the diversionary verbiage, snarl words and irrelevant ‘facts which constitute the bulk of the 60 pages of the plaint, the material facts, as gathered from the record, are as follows. The firm applied for and obtained from the Bank a letter of credit, dated Feb. 27, 1981, for the purpose of importing prime quality CR ‘steel sheets and other similar goods specified in the said letter from M/s. Mercantile Trading Co. of Hong Kong. The letter of credit issued by the Bank authorised M/s. Mercantile Trading Co. to draw on the firm bills for a sum not exceeding 11.95 lacs U. S. dollars, and the Bank undertook to honour the documents on presentation. The goods valuing 11.78,839.96 lacs U. S. dollars were shipped by the suppliers on Feb. 10, 1982. i. e. within the stipulated period of shipment. The goods were expected to be landed in India by the middle of April1982. It appears that the firm which was originally confident of raising its own funds for retiring the documents, paying import duty and meeting other expenses for getting the delivery of the goods on landing was unable to do so. The firm therefore once again approached the Bank for help. Much against its earlier assurances in writing to the Bank that it would not be needing any cash credit facility for getting the goods cleared and obtaining their delivery, the firm wrote to the Bank on March 3. 1982. requesting for a cash credit pledge limit of Rs. 115 lacs. By its letter, dated. April 1. 1982, the Bank sanctioned an ad hoc cash credit pledge limit of Rs. 115 lacs for a period of three months from the date of the landing of the goods on the terms and conditions as specified in the said letter. The firm signed the said letter accepting ail the terms and conditions therein. The firm pledged the bills of lading and the imported goods as collateral and security for the loans granted. It also undertook to deposit Rs. 12.50 lacs in addition to the earlier deposit of Rs. 7.50 lacs, by way of margin money. The firm also agreed to deposit additional amount, over and above the agreed minimum of Rs. 20 lacs by way of margin, in the event of variation in the exchange rate. Another important condition accepted by the firm as a part and parcel of the cash credit pledge contract, reads as under:- YOU will also be required to deposit in advance with our D. N. Road Bombay branch the custom duty, auxiliary duty, ad valorem charges, warehouse charges, clearing agent’s commission and all other miscellaneous charges in connection with taking delivery of the g
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.