9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfaction of the plaintiff's claim - It is true that the plaintiff did not receive the payment that was forwarded to it on February 21, 2005 with any caveat or reservation that it would revert to the defendant with an additional claim, if later discovered. Equally, it does not appear that the defendant ensured that the payment made by it in February, 2005 or the subsequent release of the part of the TDS deducted would be the end of the matter and that there could be no further demand made in respect of the delayed payments. The claim came to be rejected at the trial primarily on the ground of accord and satisfaction and by referring to a judgment that the parties say had not been cited before the Court of first instance. It cannot be emphasised too much that when a Court seeks to rely on a judgment against any party, the fundamental canons of natural justice command that the party be made aware thereof so that such party may be able to deal with the same. Indeed, there are instances when judgments have been relied upon against a party without reference to such party and it has been discovered in course of the appeal that the relevant judgments had since been overruled. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st at the rate of 13.5% per annum and the other carrying interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum. Specific numbers of bonds of either denomination were obtained by one CRB Capital Markets Limited. As is well known, such CRB Capital Markets Limited and the principal person in control thereof were involved in divers market irregularities and the Reserve Bank of India, in exercise of its special authority, was constrained to seek winding-up of CRB Capital Markets Limited before the Delhi High Court within whose jurisdiction that company was registered. However, prior to the winding-up proceedings against CRB Capital Markets Limited being launched, one Shankarlal Saraf had purchased the relevant bonds from CRB Capital Markets Limited and such Saraf, in turn, sold the bonds to plaintiff Sibco Investment Private Limited. The initial transfer of the bonds was registered by defendant SIDBI in March, 1997 in favour of the said Saraf. The subsequent transfer of the bonds in favour of the plaintiff was also duly recorded by the defendant. 3. The plaintiff purchased 15 bonds of face value of ₹ 10 lakh each that yielded interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum from the said Saraf. Simul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exercise of its authority under its parent statute of 1934 or the other Acts of 1949 or the like governing the relationship between the central bank and other banks. It was also evident from the letter of June 9, 1997 that there was no order of Court preventing the release of the interest on the relevant bonds nor even a letter from the official liquidator attached to the Delhi High Court issued in such regard. Quite plainly, the defendant chose not to issue the interest to the plaintiff in respect of the relevant bonds without there being an appropriate order from any court of law or other authority which was binding on the defendant. The defendant merely chose to amuse the Reserve Bank by withholding interest on the basis of its letter of June 9, 1997 despite having paid the initial tranche of interest on the relevant bonds immediately after receiving such letter. 7. Instruments as the bonds in this particular case are freely transferable and tradable in the open market. Such market instruments cannot be toyed with nor the free transferability thereof interdicted or tinkered with without valid reason. Nothing prevented the defendant in this case to honour the tenor of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of bonds and for the delay in releasing maturity values covered by the bonds. It was for such claim on account of interest for the delay in discharging the payments that the suit was brought to this Court. 10. There was no defence available to the defendant, particularly since the Delhi High Court order of December 17, 2004 made it absolutely clear that even the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff herein remained unaffected by the winding-up proceedings pertaining to CRB Capital Markets Limited lodged before the Delhi High Court. Though the defendant here may have run a defence of accord and satisfaction, it does not appear from a reading of the defendant's covering letter under which the payments were forwarded on February 21, 2005 that the defendant called upon the plaintiff to encash the instruments forwarded in full and final satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. The fact there was no such condition imposed by the relevant letter is evident from the fact that the defendant subsequently refunded a substantial amount on account of the additional TDS that had been deducted, upon the plaintiff's demand in such regard. 11. It is true that the plaintiff did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause for the defendant to delay the payment on account of interest or the principal, upon the bonds maturing, the defendant ought to compensate the plaintiff. The defendant ought to pay interest for the delay between the dates on which the interest accrued and when such interest was finally paid. The defendant is also liable to compensate the plaintiff by way of interest in respect of the maturity values of the two sets of bonds, again from the respective dates of maturity till the date of actual payment. It is evident that the interest payments which fell due on June 21 and December 21 each year may not have been made for several years and all of them were collectively paid on or about February 21, 2005. For such periods, from the dates of accrual of the interest till the date of actual payment, the defendant will compensate the plaintiff by payment of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum simple. On account of the maturity values of the two sets of bonds, the defendant will be liable to pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the respective maturity dates till the date of actual payment. It is recorded that the 15 bonds of face value of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
