[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Limited vs Al Amanah Islamic on 11 February, 2026

Author: Aniruddha Roy

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

                     In the High Court at Calcutta
                         Commercial Division
                            Original Side
      Judgment (2)

PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

                                             IA No. GA-COM/1/2024
                                              In CS-COM/680/2024

                                          ABHIRAJ ASSOCIATES PRIVATE
                                                    LIMITED
                                                       Vs
                                               AL AMANAH ISLAMIC
                                            INVESTMENT BANK OF THE
                                              PHILIPPINES AND ORS

                                                          &

                                             IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
                                              In CS-COM/680/2024

                                          ABHIRAJ ASSOCIATES PRIVATE
                                                     LIMITED
                                                        Vs
                                               AL AMANAH ISLAMIC
                                            INVESTMENT BANK OF THE
                                               PHILIPPINES AND ORS


For the plaintiff             : Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
                                Mr. Sourath Dutt, Adv.
                                Mr. Abhik Chitta Kundu, Adv.
                                Ms. Abhipiya Sarkar, Adv.

For the defendant No. 2       : Mr. Ayan Dutta, Adv.
                                Ms. Sarmistha Das, Adv.

For the defendant No. 5       : Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
                                Mr. Jaydeep Roy, Adv.

Heard on            : February 11, 2026

Judgment on         : February 11, 2026
                         [In Court]
                                        2




ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :

1. IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 is an application filed by the plaintiff

praying for an order of injunction against the defendants to protect

the alleged balance claim on account of price of goods sold and

delivered in connection with the Letter of Credit. The order of

injunction has already been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench on

June 10, 2024 and was then modified by an order dated January

31, 2025 to the extent to bring the defendant No. 2 within the

purview of the said order of injunction and since then the order of

injunction is also operating against the defendant No. 2.

2. Learned Counsel, Mr. Ayan Dutta appearing for the defendant No. 2

submits that his client has filed an application being IA GA-

COM/4/2025, inter alia, praying for rejection of plaint as against the

defendant No. 2 and the deletion of its name from the array of the

parties.

3. In the said application, the plaintiff has filed its affidavit in

opposition but the defendant No. 2 has not filed affidavit in reply.

4. At this juncture, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for

the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff shall not rely upon the affidavit

in opposition filed in the application filed by the defendant No. 2 and

he shall defend the application only on the basis of the statement

made therein.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

5. In view of the above, by consent of the parties, both these

applications being the instant one and IA GA-COM/4/2025 are

taken up for consideration one after another.

6. Since the application filed by the defendant No. 2 is for rejection of

plaint, the same is taken up first.

In Re: GA-COM/4/2025

1. This is an application taken out by the second defendant, inter alia,

praying for rejection of plaint as against it and consequently, for

deleting the name of the second defendant from the array of the

parties.

2. The plaint case is that the plaintiff has sold certain goods/articles

to the defendant No. 4 at Bangladesh. Covering the entire price of

the goods, the defendant No. 4 has opened a Letter of Credit with

the defendant No. 1. The proforma defendant No. 5 is the banker of

the plaintiff who is to receive the entire proceed covered under the

Letter of Credit on account of the price of goods sold and delivered

and then make over the same to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 4

as the buyer of the goods accepted the proforma invoice on October

30, 2023 and then requested its banker, the second defendant

herein to arrange for issuance of irrevocable and unconditional

Letter of Credit (for short "LC") covering the entire value of

proforma invoice. The defendant No. 2 found it difficult to open the

said LC from its own counter and requested the defendant No. 1 to

issue the LC for an aggregated sum of USD 4,95,000.00 equivalent

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

to Rs.4,12,08,750/- in favour of the plaintiff. In terms of such

request, the defendant No. 1 had issued LC dated November 21,

2023 for the above sum in favour of the plaintiff, which would

expire on February 21, 2024. The copy of the Letter of Credit is

Annexure B at page 28 to the instant application. The Letter of

Credit as advised by the proforma defendant being the advising

bank, was forwarded to it by a swift message by the defendant No.

2. The plaintiff states in the plaint that the said LC had diverse

terms and conditions and the same was issued from the office of the

defendant No. 1, being the issuing bank, but routed through the

defendant No. 2 to the proforma defendant No. 5. The LC was

subsequently amended by letters. The LC was then received by the

plaintiff. Upon being satisfied with the authenticity of the same, as

advised by the proforma defendant, the plaintiff had exported a total

quantity for about 100 MT + 100 MT (two consignments) of the

goods. After completion of the export, the plaintiff sent the entire set

of negotiable documents as contemplated under the LC, to proforma

defendant. The proforma defendant then sent the negotiable

documents under the said LC to the defendant No.1, the issuing

bank, by its letter dated February 20, 2024 and February 5,

2024. The defendant No. 1 had raised a purported discrepancy by

its communication dated February 24, 2024 in connection with the

documents sent by through the cover letter dated January 20,

2024. However, the same had been raised significant period after

the stipulated five days provided for issuing discrepancies under

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

UCP-600. The petitioner had still obtained a letter, dated February

29, 2024 waiving any discrepancy from the respondent No. 4, for

abundant caution. As such the defendants have also forfeited their

right to dispute the documents sent for negotiation any further and

have made themselves liable to pay the entire amount raised in the

invoices which is covered by the LC. The defendant No.3 had

affirmed the said LC issued by the defendant no.1 as confirming

bank as defined under Article 8 of UCP. In paragraph 22 to the

plaint, the plaintiff states the role of the defendant No. 3 as

confirming bank. The plaintiff further states that it has come to

know that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have allowed the original

negotiable documents to be parted with in favour of the defendant

No. 4 to facilitate the delivery of goods. In paragraph 21 and 23 to

the plaint, the plaintiff states that the defendant No.4 in collusion

and conspiracy with the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have taken

delivery of the entire goods but the part of the sale consideration

has not been paid. It is also stated that the defendant Nos.1, 2 and

3 had issued No Objection Certificates enabling the defendant No.4

to take delivery of the said goods in collusion and conspiracy with

each other. The plaintiff through its letters, as stated in paragraph

28 to the plaint, had demanded payment from defendant No.3 and

defendant No.1. The case of the plaintiff stated in the plaint is that

liability of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, as the issuing bank,

banker of the defendant No.4 and confirming bank respectively are

co-extensive. Paragraphs 26 and 33 to the plaint state the collusion

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

and conspiracy alleged by the plaintiff by and between the

defendant Nos.1 to 4. Paragraph No. 34, 35, 36 and 37 show that

the plaintiff has raised its claims against the defendant Nos.1 to 4.

Paragraph 37 to the plaint read with prayer (b) to the plaint show

that the plaintiff claims compensation against the defendant Nos. 1

to 3.

3. Mr. Ayan Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant

No.2/applicant submits that the entire transaction is governed

under UCP. Referring to the relevant provisions from UCP, inter alia,

Article 7 and 8 thereof, Mr. Dutta submits that no liability can be

foisted upon the defendant No.2 in the facts of the case stated in

the plaint. Mr. Dutta submits that the defendant No.2 has neither

acted as confirming bank nor an issuing bank nor the nominated

bank. The defendant No.2 merely has forwarded/relayed the LC to

the proforma defendant No.5. He submits that, the issuing bank

being the defendant no.1 first sent the LC to Asia Pacific

Investment Bank of Malaysia (for short "Malaysian Bank"), which

in turn had forwarded the same to the defendant No.2 and the

defendant No.2 had forwarded the same to the proforma defendant.

4. Specifically referring to Article 8 from the UCP, Mr. Dutta, learned

Counsel for the applicant submits that the liability, if any, has to be

foisted upon the defendant No.1 first and then the confirming bank

being, the defendant No.3 and no liability can be foisted upon the

defendant No.2.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

5. Mr. Ayan Dutta, learned Counsel for the applicant/defendant No.2

submits that since no liability can be fixed against the defendant

No.2 under the UCP, the plaintiff could not have raised any claim

even in the nature of compensation against the defendant No.2. The

entire transaction is governed under UCP. Indian laws have no

application on the transaction.

6. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Counsel being ably assisted by Mr.

Sourath Dutt appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaint case

clearly demonstrates the liability of the defendant No.2 towards the

unpaid sale consideration along with other defendants, arising out

of the said LC.

7. Referring to the reliefs claimed in the plaint, learned Counsel for the

plaintiff submits that the claims were made, specifically in

paragraph 34 and 37 to the plaint, against the defendant nos.1 to

3. The allegation of conspiracy is specifically pleaded in the plaint

including against the defendant No.2 along with other defendants.

He submits that the facts are complicated which are required to be

tried by way of witness action. Summarily, it cannot be said, from

the instant plaint, that the defendant No.2 is free from any liability

arising out of transaction alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint.

8. In the light of the above, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Counsel

submits that this application should be dismissed and the plaint

must stand for trial against the defendants.

9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal

of materials on record, at the outset, this Court reiterates the

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

settled principle of law while adjudicating an application praying for

rejection of plaint. While adjudicating of an application for rejection

of plaint, it is the duty of the Court to read the plaint and the

statements including the reliefs made therein and not beyond that.

The statements made in the plaint should be taken as true, correct

and sacrosanct. The defence or the probable defence defendant can

take to defend the plaint should not be the consideration of the

Court while adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint. If on

a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, the Court is of the

view that the plaint is either barred by law or does not disclose any

cause of action against the defendant or any such defendants

and/or if the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of the

parties, then the Court may reject the plaint in its entirety or

against such defendants, as the case may be.

10. On a plain and meaningful reading of the instant plaint, it appears

to this Court that the plaintiff has described a transaction relating

to sale of goods. The goods were sold to the defendant No.4 who has

consumed the goods. The sale consideration was covered under the

said LC. The issuing bank of the LC was defendant No.1. The

confirming bank was defendant No.3 and the banker of the

defendant No.4/purchaser is the defendant No.2 and the

negotiating bank on behalf of the plaintiff is the proforma defendant

No.5. Collusion and conspiracy have also been stated with the

alleged particulars in the statements made in the plaint. The plaint

on the face of it does not show to be barred by any law or that it

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

does not disclose any cause of action against the

applicant/defendant No.2. At the stage of final trial, the suit may

fail against the defendant No.2 or may succeed. The bundle of facts

stated in the plaint which gave rise to the cause of action alleged in

the plaint, on a plain reading of the statements made the plaint

show an alleged involvement of the defendant No.2 in the

transaction. Segregation of cause of action is not possible without a

proper trial of the suit. Truth may come out at the time of trial but

not at this stage. From the Letter of Credit annexed to the plaint it

appears that the defendant No.2 has been described as "Sender"

therein. Therefore, the alleged involvement of the defendant No.2 in

the transaction qua the Letter of Credit cannot be ruled out

summarily, at this stage.

11. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the

applicant/defendant No.2, it appears to this Court that, if this

Court takes them into account at this stage, then a mini trial has to

be held, which is not permitted in law.

12. Considering the complicated set of facts involved in the transaction,

as pleaded in the plaint, inter alia, the allegations made against the

defendant No.2 in the plaint, this Court is of the firm and

considered view that, it is not a fit case for summary rejection of

plaint against the defendant No.2.

13. Accordingly, the suit stands for trial.

14. Resultantly, the instant application being IA No. GA-COM/4/2025

stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

In Re: GA-COM/1/2024

1. Mr. Sourath Dutt, learned Advocate led by Mr. Rupak Ghosh,

learned Advocate appears for the plaintiff/petitioner.

2. Mr. Ayan Dutta, learned Advocate appears for the respondent No. 2.

3. Mr. Joydeep Roy, learned Advocate appears for the proforma

defendant No. 5.

4. This is the final hearing of an injunction application filed by the

plaintiff/petitioner in which by two different orders dated June 10,

2024 and January 31, 2025, the Co-ordinate Bench has passed

orders of injunction against the defendants/ respondents

restraining from withdrawing or transferring any amount from the

bank account as mentioned in paragraph 57 to the injunction

application without leaving the balance of Rs.1,66,90,785/-.

Initially, the order of injunction was for a limited period.

Subsequently, the same was extended from time to time and the

same is subsisting till January 15, 2026 by virtue of the last order

of extension dated November 4, 2025.

5. The defendant/respondent No. 2 has only filed its affidavit in

opposition, to which the petitioner has filed affidavit in reply.

6. The rest of the defendants/respondents have not been represented

at any point of time, despite notices. The non-appearing

respondents have not filed their affidavit in opposition.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

7. The appearing parties inform this Court that no appeal has been

preferred from the orders of injunction dated June 10, 2024 or

January 31, 2025.

8. The petitioner states that the petitioner has sold and delivered

goods to the respondent No. 4 upon proforma invoice being issued

by it dated October 30, 2023. Upon the said profroma invoice

being placed before the respondent No. 2, which has been described

as the banker of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 2 agreed

to issue the Letter of Credit covering the purchase price of the goods

sold and delivered in favour of the respondent No. 4.

9. However, for the crunch in foreign currency prevailing at the

relevant country where the respondent No. 4 is domiciled, the

respondent No. 2 requested the respondent No. 1 to issue Letter of

Credit. Accordingly, the Letter of Credit for a sum of USD 4,95,000

equivalent to Rs.4,12,08,750/- dated November 21, 2023,

Annexure B at Page No. 28 to the injunction application, was

issued by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 at all

material time has been described as the confirming bank by the

petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 5 has been described by

the petitioner as the negotiating bank who shall receive the amount

covered under the Letter of Credit (for short "LC") and shall

ultimately make over to the petitioner, the seller of the goods.

10. The Letter of Credit appearing at page 28 to the application shows

that the name of "Swift Output Sender" is the respondent No. 2

and the "Receiver" is proforma respondent No. 5.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

11. The petitioner contends that no part of the sale consideration has

been paid which is covered under the LC. The amount was initially

released by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the proforma

respondent No. 5 and then was paid to the petitioner by the

proforma respondent No. 5.

12. Claiming the unpaid sale consideration, the instant suit has been

filed.

13. The instant injunction application was moved before the Co-

ordinate Bench on June 10, 2024 when the order of injunction was

passed to the effect, as already narrated above, and the same was

then extended from time to time and is still subsisting till January

15, 2026.

14. Subsequently after receiving further information, the petitioner has

filed a supplementary affidavit with the leave of the Co-ordinate

Bench when after hearing the petitioner, the Co-ordinate Bench had

modified the order of injunction dated June 10, 2024 by its order

dated January 31, 2025, to the extent that the defendant Nos. 1, 2

and 3 were also restrained from withdrawing or transferring any

amount from the bank account mentioned in the said order.

15. Mr. Sourath Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the Letter of Credit annexed to the petition clearly

bears the name of the respondent No. 2 as the Swift Output

Sender. Therefore, the involvement of the respondent No. 2 in the

transaction and qua the Letter of Credit cannot be denied.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

16. The extent of liability, as pleaded in the petition, insofar as the

respondent No. 2 is concerned are, prima facie, apparent from the

Letter of Credit and the allied records disclosed in this proceeding.

17. Mr. Sourath Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner

then refers to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and

submits that after recording the facts in detail and after being

satisfied, prima facie, on the basis of those facts, the order of

injunction has been passed and the respondent No. 2 has not come

up with any case which can demolish the said prima facie finding.

18. Hence, Mr. Dutt prays for continuation and confirmation of the

interim order till disposal of the suit.

19. Mr. Ayan Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.

2 at the threshold refers to the statement from paragraph 13 of the

injunction application. He submits that it is the specific case of the

petitioner that the proforma respondent was acting as advising

bank and the negotiating bank on behalf of the petitioner and after

receipt of the negotiable documents under the said LC, the same

were forwarded duly by the proforma respondent to the respondent

No. 1. He then refers to Article 12 of the UCP-600 and submits

that unless a nominated bank is the confirming bank, an

authorization to honour or negotiate does not impose any obligation

on that nominated bank to honour or negotiate, except when

expressly agreed to by that nominated bank and so communicated

to the beneficiary. He then refers Article 8 of UCP-600 and submits

that the same provided the stipulated documents are presented to

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

the confirming bank or to any other nominated bank and that they

constitute a complying presentation then only the confirming bank

must honour the Letter of Credit. In the facts of the instant case, as

would be evident from the statement made in paragraph 13 of the

petition, the LC was presented before the respondent No. 1 being

the issuing bank. Therefore, no liability on the part of the

respondent No. 2 arises under the said UCP-600 or otherwise in

any manner.

20. Mr. Ayan Dutta, further refers to Annexure B at page 21 from the

affidavit in opposition and submits that in the said document, the

name of the Swift Output Sender is mentioned as one Asia Pacific

Investment Bank Limited and not the name of the respondent No. 2,

but the name of the respondent No. 2 has been mentioned as

Receiver. Therefore, there is no responsibility on the part of the

respondent No. 2 to make any payment to the petitioner under the

said Letter of Credit. The name of the respondent No. 2 even does

not feature at the relevant Letter of Credit.

21. In the light of the above submissions, Mr. Ayan Dutta, learned

Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that no prima

facie case has been made out based on available documents on

record that any liability can be foisted upon the respondent No. 2

arising out of said LC. He further submits from page 23 of affidavit

in opposition that the name of Sender to the Receiver is

mentioned as Asia Pacific Investment Bank Limited.

22. Hence the interim order should be vacated.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

23. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon

perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, the

transaction of sale of goods by the petitioner in favour of the

respondent no.4 has not been denied. The opening and existence of

the said Letter of Credit is also not denied. Therefore, the

transaction on record stands admitted, prima facie. The question

whether any sum, is payable to the plaintiff or not is the subject

matter of the trial in the suit.

24. Save and except the respondent no.2 and proforma respondent

no.5, the other respondents have not entered appearance. The

respondent no.2 and proforma respondent no.5 have also filed their

written statement.

25. In between two documents at page 28 to the injunction application

and page 21 to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent

no.2 which one is to be taken as correct, that will also depend on

trial of the suit. The document disclosed by the petitioner in its

petition at page 28, prima facie, shows that the name of the Swift

Output Sender is mentioned as the name of the respondent no.2.

26. The affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent no.2 also shows

the involvement of the respondent no.2 in the transaction, but it

may so happen at the time of final trial of the suit it may fail or

succeed against the respondent no.2 after ascertaining its actual

role in the transaction but prima facie involvement of the

respondent no.2 has been found by this Court, of course with a

triable issue.

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

27. The provisions referred to from the UCP-600 and its applicability, as

raised by the respondent no.2 would also depend upon the correct

facts being ascertained after conducting a detail fact finding trial.

28. This Court is of the view that, on a prima facie finding, this Court

now is not in a position to decide whether any liability can be

foisted upon or not on the respondent No.2 by applying the

provisions under UCP-600 unless concrete finding of facts are

arrived at.

29. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the

considered and firm prima facie view that the orders of injunction

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, as referred to above, should

continue and accordingly the same stand confirmed until disposal

of the suit. The balance of convenience and/or inconvenience is also

in favour of confirmation of the interim orders already passed.

30. In view of the above, the instant application being IA No. GA-

COM/1/2024 stands allowed.

(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/2025 In CS-COM/680/2024 A.R., J.

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

Campus Buzz

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Library

Legal Education

More

Circulars & Notices

Limited vs Al Amanah Islamic
2026 Latest Caselaw 776 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Limited vs Al Amanah Islamic on 11 February, 2026

Author: Aniruddha Roy

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Limited vs Al Amanah Islamic2026 Latest Caselaw 776 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Limited vs Al Amanah Islamic on 11 February, 2026

Author: Aniruddha Roy

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Limited vs Al Amanah Islamic
2026 Latest Caselaw 776 Cal/2