9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar. 3. The second respondent, Rajadhiraj Industries Pvt. Ltd., has its registered office at Seoni, Madhya Pradesh. It is represented by its Managing Director, Shri Harishchandra Singhania. 4. The third respondent, Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. has its registered office at Bombay and branch offices at other places, including one at Madras. 5. The fourth respondent is Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation, incorporated under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1957, having its registered office in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. 6. The first respondent (manufacturer) entered into a contract on November 11, 1969 with the second respondent to erect a plant for manufacture of hydrogenated vegetable oil. There was a supplementary agreement between them on January 24, 1970. The cost of the plant was ₹ 25,00,000/-. The third respondent (for short called the Industrial Bank), agreed to finance the manufacturer (first respondent) under a Scheme called the Bills Rediscounting Scheme . Under that Scheme the manufacturer would obtain in convenient mutually agreed installments the value of the machinery supplied within a few days of its delivery by discounting with his ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt injunction restraining the petitioner Bank and respondents 1 3 from enforcing the aforesaid guarantee and the? Usance Bills; (d) permanently restraining the guarantor (fourth respondent) from discharging any liability under the aforesaid guarantees, dated November 3, 1970 and February 18, 1971. It was alleged in the plaint by the second respondent that acceptance of the bills was vitiated by false representation made by the agent of the petitioner Bank. The defendants in the Seoni suit (petitioner and respondent 1 herein) filed their written statements denying the allegations and claim made in the plaint. In March 1978, the District Judge, Seoni framed issues in that suit. 11. In the Seoni Suit, the second respondent made an application for interim injunction restraining the petitioner from enforcing the rights in respect of the Usance Bills accepted by the second respondent and regarding the guarantees furnished by the fourth respondent. The District Judge dismissed that application; but on appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted the interim injunction as prayed for. On appeal by the petitioner, this Court by its order, dated March 20, 1974, set aside the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strial Bank and payments were to be made expressly in Madras. Under an interim order dated April 9, 1976 passed by the High Court of Madras in the said suit, the fourth respondent has deposited with the petitioner herein, a sum of ₹ 10 lacs as and by way of deposit. Apart from a claim for damages of ₹ 1 lac against the first respondent herein, (the manufacturers), no money claim has been made against the petitioner in the Seoni Suit. Nor has the petitioner made any counter-claim in the Senoi Suit. 15. We are of opinion, this petition must succeed. Section 25 of the CPC as substituted for the former section by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, empowers this Court to direct that any suit, appeal or other proceeding be transferred from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other State, if it is satisfied that such an order is expedient in the ends of justice . The former Section 25 empowered the State Government to transfer, on receiving a report from the Judge concerned of the High Court to transfer suits or proceedings in certain circumstances from one High Court to another High Court. The scope of the former Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Madras, the parties are the same except that in the Madras suit five other persons who are alleged to be partners of the first respondent, herein and two of whom furnished collateral securities, have also been. joined as defendants. Further, the material issues in both the suits are common or interdependent. For instance, issue No. 14 in the Seoni Suit is substantially the same as issue No. 7 framed by the Madras High Court in the suit filed there by the petitioner. The questions involved, inter alia, in issues 9, 10, 12, 18, 19 and 20 in the Seoni Suit have a substantial bearing on the decision of issues 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and 10 framed in the Madras Suit. The basic question commonly arising in each of the two suits concerns the liability of the second respondent and the fourth respondent to make payment as the acceptor of the bills of exchange and the guarantors, respectively, for due payment under those bills. If the two suits are allowed to continue in their original forums there is a possibility of conflicting findings on the question of liability under the Usance Bills and under the guarantees. It is not disputed (we are told) that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
