Defendant's Defense Rejected, Plaintiff Awarded Rs. 20,92,802.40 with Interest

Defendant no.2's application for leave to defend was dismissed by the court, ruling in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 20,92,802.40, with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum. The court found defendant no.2's defenses regarding the violation of the Letter of Credit terms and UCP 500 provisions to be unsubstantiated, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant no.2 violated the terms of the Letter of Credit (L/C) and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500).
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claimed amount along with interest.
3. Whether there exist any triable issues warranting leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Terms of L/C and UCP 500:

The plaintiff, a public limited company, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,92,802.40 along with interest, under Order XXXVII of the CPC. The plaintiff claimed that defendant no.3 placed an order for conveyor belting fabric and agreed to make payments through documentary letters of credit (L/C). Defendant no.2 opened the L/C and forwarded it to defendant no.1, the plaintiff's banker. The plaintiff submitted all requisite documents to defendant no.1, which were then forwarded to defendant no.2.

The plaintiff contended that defendant no.2 failed to inform them or defendant no.1 about any discrepancies within the prescribed period of seven banking days, as required by Article 13(b) of the UCP 500. Defendant no.2 held the documents until December 1999, well beyond the L/C's expiry in September 1999, thus violating UCP 500 provisions.

Defendant no.2 argued that it had informed defendant no.1 about discrepancies via letters dated July 2, 1999, August 19, 1999, and August 21, 1999, and returned the documents in November and December 1999. However, the court found that defendant no.2's communication did not constitute a clear refusal or acceptance of the documents, violating UCP 500 Articles 13(b) and 14.

2. Entitlement to Claimed Amount and Interest:

The plaintiff issued a legal notice on February 2, 2000, demanding payment of Rs. 20,92,802.40 along with 18% interest per annum, citing defendant no.2's failure to comply with UCP 500. Upon receiving an unsatisfactory reply, the plaintiff filed the suit.

The court, referencing the Apex Court's decisions in "Federal Bank Ltd vs. V.M Jog Engineering Ltd." and "UBS AG vs. State Bank of Patiala," emphasized that UCP 500 rules bind parties to documentary credits, and the issuing bank must comply with these provisions. The court found that defendant no.2 failed to act within the stipulated time, thus precluding it from disputing the documents' compliance later.

3. Triable Issues and Leave to Defend:

The court examined whether the defendant raised any triable issues warranting leave to defend under Order XXXVII. The defense argued technical issues, such as the plaintiff's failure to produce a certificate of incorporation and the authorized signatory's authority to file the suit. The court dismissed these technical defenses as they did not constitute triable issues.

The court referred to the Apex Court's ruling in "Raj Duggal v. Ramesh Kumar Bansal," which outlined that leave to defend should be granted if the defense raises a real issue, not a sham one. The court concluded that defendant no.2's defenses were neither real nor plausible, as they failed to comply with UCP 500 provisions.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed defendant no.2's application for leave to defend, finding no triable issues. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 20,92,802.40, along with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum. The decree was ordered to be drawn accordingly.

---