9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority to sign and verify the plaint. 2. Agency status of the defendants in signing the exchange contracts. 3. Effect of the ban on the export of rayon filament yarn on the contracts. 4. Effect of the extension given for the performance of the contracts. 5. Liability of the defendants to pay cancellation charges. 6. Effect of non-cancellation of the contracts by defendants. 7. Limitation period for filing the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Authority to Sign and Verify the Plaint The plaint was signed and verified by Shri M.L. Chander, Manager of the plaintiff bank. PW-3, Shri D.C. Rai Chandani, testified that officers of the bank posted as Managers/Branch Managers are entitled to sign the plaint based on Regulations 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. Regulation 77 allows any officer or employee empowered under Regulation 76 to sign documents on behalf of the State Bank. The notification dated September 17, 1959, authorized agents and other persons to sign documents mentioned in Regulation 76. "Agents" were redesignated as Branch Managers by notification dated June 21, 1972. Thus, any Manager of the plaintiff bank is fully authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and institute legal proceedings. This issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: Agency Status of the Defendants Defendant No. 2 admitted in his deposition that he was dealing with the State Bank on his own accord and not on behalf of Indian Rayon or Century Rayon. This admission negates the need to examine further evidence. The defendants signed the forward contracts on their own account and not as agents of Indian Rayon or Century Rayon. This issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issues No. 3 to 6: Effect of the Ban, Extensions, Cancellation Charges, and Non-cancellation These issues are interconnected and analyzed together. The export of rayon was banned w.e.f. July 27, 1973, which made it impossible for the defendants to deliver dollars to the plaintiff as per the forward contracts. The banning order destroyed the foundation of the forwarding contracts, leading to their automatic dissolution. The plaintiff's witnesses testified that the defendants failed to ship goods to Afghanistan and deliver the agreed foreign exchange. The defendants argued that the contracts were frustrated due to the ban. The court held that the banning order fundamentally changed the situation, and the forward contracts dissolved automatically due to frustration. The plaintiff's contention that the defendants should pay interest under Rule 9(III)(2) and Rule 9(IV) of the FEDA Rules was rejected. These rules apply to canceled contracts, not frustrated ones. The contracts were discharged due to frustration, relieving the parties from their obligations. Consequently, the defendants are not liable to pay cancellation charges, and the non-cancellation of the contracts by the defendants did not keep them alive. These issues are decided in favor of the defendants. Issue No. 7: Limitation Period for Filing the Suit The banning order came into effect on July 27, 1973, and the suit was filed on July 11, 1977. The contract was discharged on the date of the banning order, and the suit was filed after more than three years, making it barred by limitation. The plaintiff's argument that the limitation period should start from the date of the defendants' letters requesting an extension was rejected. The cause of action accrued on the date of the banning order, and the suit is barred by limitation. Relief: In view of the findings on Issues Nos. 2 to 7, the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
