Bombay High Court
Unique Intergrated Transport And ... vs Punjab National Bank Limited on 13 June, 2023
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
comss 919 of 1996.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
SUMMARY SUIT NO.919 OF 1996
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2566 OF 2018
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20808 OF 2021
M/s. Unique Integrated Transport and Management
Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. ... Plaintiff
versus
M/s. Punjab National Bank Ltd., and Ors. ... Defendants
WITH
SUIT NO.2999 OF 2005
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20809 OF 2021
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2335 OF 2018
Unique Integrated Transport and Management
Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ... Plaintiffs
versus
Punjab National Bank Ltd. ... Defendant
Dr. K.K.Khanna, for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Shanay Shah with Mr. Anup Khaitan i/by Anup Khaitan and Co., for Defendants.
CORAM : N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 13 JUNE 2023
( In Chambers )
P.C.
1. The matter is heard in Chambers as the Court was confronted with the
aspect of lack of clarity in the issues.
SSP 1/6
comss 919 of 1996.doc
2. In COMSS 919 of 1996, issues were initially settled by an order dated 14
January 2011. Draft issues were treated as settled issues. Thereafter, it seems, issue
Nos.7 to 10 were deleted from the settled issues by an order dated 12 March 2012.
However, in the compilation of documents tendered for the perusal of the Court
during the course of the submissions, the original draft issues which were taken as
settled issues 'X', were furnished and arguments were also canvassed.
3. It appears while deleting issue Nos.7 to 10, the consequential issues,
including the reliefs, to which the Plaintiff would be entitled in the event of decree,
have not been framed.
4. Hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, issues
are recast by framing following issue Nos.7 and 8 :
"7. Does the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant
No.1 Bank has misappropriated the deposited funds of
over Rs.9.50 Lakhs standing to the credit of the
Plaintiff and/or directors and also charged high rate of
interest with penalty interest of 2% aggregating to
22% p.a with quarterly rests against the debit of
Rs.16,77,421/- ?
8. Is the Plaintiff entitled for a decree in the sum
of Rs.1,16,76,622/- as claimed in the statement
of Claim (Exhibit X) with interest @ 22.10%
p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of filing
of the Suit till realization ?"
5. In Suit No.2999 of 2005, Issue No.9 framed, on 14 September 2015,
reads as under :
SSP 2/6
comss 919 of 1996.doc
"9. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to
compensation for loss, damages, mental and physical pain and
suffering due to non-return of the order as alleged in paragraph
No.30 of the Plaint ?"
6. Paragraph No.30 of the Plaint does not refer to the order for non-return
of which the issue seems to have been settled. Since the aforesaid issue does not
make complete sense, again with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties,
the issues are recast.
7. Issue Nos.1 and 3 stand deleted.
8. The aforestated issue No.9 stands recast as under :
"Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled
to compensation for loss, damages, mental and
physical pain and suffering as claimed in paragraph
60 of the Plaint ?"
9. The recast issues in COMSS No.919 of 1996 and Suit No.2999 of 2005
are annexed to this Order as annexures "AA" and "BB".
10. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the parties upon recast
of issues do not wish to lead further evidence. The learned Counsel for the parties
further submit that no further hearing is required.
11. Closed for judgment.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/6
comss 919 of 1996.doc
"AA"
ISSUES IN COMSS 919 OF 1996
(1) Whether eight bank guarantees totaling about
16,77,421.00 issued by bank Oriental Bank of
Commerce already expired in 1994 because of
non-extension/non-renewal in 1994 and were got
extended by the Defendants under pressure
from some employees of MTNL without
the concurrence, consent and knowledge of Plaintiff ?
(2) Whether the Defendants extended the guarantees
extended fraudulently when the guarantees had
already expired even otherwise in terms of the
conditions in the guarantee ?
(3) Whether the extension letters of guarantees were
issued by Defendants actually in 1995 but they were
back dated with various dates in October, December,
1994 ?
(4) Whether the extension letters issued by the bank
falsely stated in the text of the extension letters
that the extension letter was issued at the request
of the constituent when actually there was no such
request made by the Plaintiff ?
(5) Whether the Defendants paid up the amounts of
guarantees to MTNL without the concurrence,
consent and knowledge of the Plaintiff and by
concealing this fact of payment from the Plaintiff
till after payment.
(6) Whether the extension of guarantees and subsequent
immediate payment therefore was done by Defendants
without the concurrence, consent and knowledge of the
Plaintiff with the ulterior motive of causing
deliberately wrongful loss to the Plaintiff ?
(7) Does the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant No.1 Bank
SSP 4/6
comss 919 of 1996.doc
has misappropriated the deposited funds of over
Rs.9.50 Lakhs standing to the credit of the Plaintiff
and/or directors and also charged high rate of interest
with penalty interest of 2% aggregating to 22% p.a. with
quarterly rests against the debit of Rs.16,77,421/- ?
(8) Is the Plaintiff entitled for a decree in the sum of
Rs.1,16,76,622/- as claimed in the statement of
claim (Exhibit X) with interest @ 22.10% p.a.
with quarterly rests from the date of filing of
the suit till realization ?
SSP 5/6
comss 919 of 1996.doc
"BB"
ISSUES IN SUIT NO.2999 OF 2005
(1) Whether the Defendant proves that the suit is
barred by the law of limitation ?
(2) Whether the Defendant proves that the Suit No.2172
of 1997 filed in High Court by the Defendant Bank
and later transferred to DRTI was altogether different
and para Nos.34 to 58 of Plaint referring to the
proceedings in DRTI have no bearing in the present
Suit ?
(3) Whether the Defendant proves that the Defendant
renewed the expired bank guarantee at the request
of and as per the directions of the Plaintiffs ?
(4) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the bank extended
the bank guarantees which had already expired, and
made payments to MTNL without information,
approval, consent and knowledge of the Plaintiffs ?
(5) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the fixed deposits
of the Plaintiffs were misappropriated by the Defendant
for making payment to MTNL without knowledge,
information, consent, or approval of the Plaintiffs ?
(6) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled
to compensation for loss, damages, mental and
physical pain and suffering as claimed in paragraph
60 of the Plaint ?
(7) To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
SSP 6/6
