2024 (5) TMI 1651 - HC - Customs

Interest Equalisation Scheme payment claim against one defendant, with non-joinder objection; dismissal bid rejected and no oral evidence ordered.

In a suit seeking amounts under an Interest Equalisation Scheme, the HC considered an application to dismiss for non-joinder of alleged necessary parties. ... Application for dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties - Interest Equalisation Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit scheme - plaintiff’s claim is against the defendant alone and the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant was liable to make payment of the amount due to it under the Scheme irrespective of the interpretation placed upon the Scheme by the Union and RBI - HELD THAT:- The question of whether the plaintiff can maintain its claims against the defendant alone despite the aforesaid communication is left open for consideration. The rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved - The application is disposed of. Seeking a limited relief that oral evidence is not required in the suit and the suit may be decided on the basis of the pleadings and the admitted documents - HELD THAT:- The application is disposed of with the direction that no oral evidence is required in the suit. An application under Order I Rules 9 and 13 CPC sought dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties, contending that the dispute arose under the RBI's 'Interest Equalisation Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit' and turned on interpretation of paragraph 2(A)(iii). The defendant argued it functioned only as an intermediary passing on a government benefit, with reimbursement routed through RBI and ultimately borne by the Union; reliance was placed on clarifications issued to the plaintiff by RBI (17.02.2022) and DGFT (08.07.2022) stating the plaintiff had already received its entitled amount. The plaintiff asserted it sought no relief against the Union, DGFT, or RBI, did not challenge their communications, and claimed the defendant remained liable to pay amounts due under the Scheme 'irrespective of the interpretation' of the Scheme by those authorities. On that statement, the court held 'the Union and RBI are not necessary parties,' while leaving open 'whether the plaintiff can maintain its claims against the defendant alone despite the aforesaid communication,' reserving rights and contentions. A separate Order XIII-A application was disposed of on consensus that 'no oral evidence is required in the suit,' directing decision on pleadings and admitted documents.