9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to have issued a mandate to the Defendant bank to keep the said sum in fixed deposit whilst the account was frozen. The Plaintiff's case is that despite such mandate, the amount was kept in a suspense account which did not earn any interest. The Plaintiff sues for the unearned interest, alleging breach of contract on the part of the Defendant bank. 2 The Plaintiff is a Government recognized export house carrying on the business of exports under licence granted by the Government of India. The Plaintiff held a current account with the Defendant bank in connection with its exports business. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), R. & I. Division, by his letter dated 4 November 1996, informed the Defendant that the Plaintiff's ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oversy between the parties as to whether or not this letter was actually received by the Defendant.) The Plaintiff, thereafter, proceeded to challenge the purported inquiry of the Customs Department including freezing instructions issued by the latter before this Court in a writ petition. The Defendant was a party to this petition along with the Customs Department. By its order dated 9 June 2004, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition inter alia by ordering defreezing of the Plaintiff's current account and release of the remittance withheld by the Defendant in the account. On 2 November 2004, the Defendant released the amount without any interest and after deducting charges of Rs. 15,997/. The Plaintiff claims interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of necessary parties ? 4. Whether the Defendant proves that the amount in question could not have been placed in fixed deposits as requested by the Plaintiff ? 5. Whether the Plaintiff proves that they are entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs. 1,21,91,105/along with further interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit until payment/realization ? 6. What decree ? What order ? 5 Both parties produced documentary and oral evidence, and made submissions through Counsel. 6 The ground of want of jurisdiction is urged by the Defendant on the basis that the cause of action arises at the branch in which the Plaintiff held its current account, and not at the Corporate office of the Defendant referred to in the cause title. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he place where the defendant has the principal office. Altogether different considerations apply when a plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 12 of Letters Patent. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd. [2006] Insc 547 (29 August 2006), the principle of Section 20 cannot be made applicable to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, since the CPC itself, by Section 120, specifically excludes the applicability of Section 20 of the CPC to Chartered High Courts. The Letters Patent is a special charter conferring jurisdiction on a Chartered High Court. When there is a special enactment such as the Letters Patent, which expressly lays down the criteria on the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. 9 The main arguments in the present suit were advanced on Issue Nos.4 and 5, which are considered together. There are two main questions which arise in connection with these issues. Firstly, it is necessary to consider whether or not the instructions or mandate to hold the amount lying in the frozen current account in a fixed deposit (namely, letter dated 7 July 1998) was actually issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Secondly, on the footing that such instructions or mandate was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, was the Plaintiff bound to accept such mandate and transfer the amount lying in the current account or held in the sundry creditors account to a fixed deposit. Learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addressee when it is addressed to someone and the truth of its contents are all matters of trial. In the present case, the document is produced by the Plaintiff through PW1. PW1 has deposed both to its contents and also its receipt by the Defendant. There are two important things to be noticed here. Firstly, after such formal proof was tendered, the Defendant did not appear to have objected to the marking of the document. Secondly, there is absolutely no cross-examination of PW1 on this point. In the premises, the only inescapable conclusion to be drawn is that the existence, receipt and contents of the document are duly proved by the Plaintiff. I hold accordingly. 11 The more important point, however, is, whether the Defendant was boun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
