Madura Coats Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 622 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The maintainability of the present writ petition is in question. The challenge to maintainability is on several grounds, including the ground that the disputes involved in the present writ petition are purely contractual and that the petitioner had even filed a suit being Civil Suit No.2851/1999 which stood decreed against the Bank of India (Respondent No.4) and in favor of the petitioner on 21.04.2003. A further ground taken is that the relief sought in the present writ petition would require a detailed investigation into disputed and complicated questions of fact and for which a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy.

2. Hilton Rubbers Limited (Respondent No.6) (hereinafter referred to as 'HRL' ) placed various orders for the supply of nylon and polyester based fabrics on the petitioner. For the purposes of completing the transaction, HRL instructed the Bank of India(Respondent No.4) (hereinafter referred to as 'BOI') to open and establish irrevocable letters of credit in favor of the petitioner. Four such letters of credit were established by the BOI. When the petitioner presented the documents to the State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch Madurai for payment under the said letters of credit, the same were sent for collection to the BOI, which refused to make the payments pointing out discrepancies in the documents.

3. Being aggrieved by the action of the BOI in not making the full payment under the said letters of credit on the purported ground of discrepancies in the documents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition requesting this Court to grant the following reliefs:-

''a. issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the Respondents to produce its records pertaining to Letters of Credit (Annexure B-1 to B-4) and all other related correspondence exchanged between the parties.

b. issue appropriate writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the Respondents 3 and 4 to honour its commitments and obligations towards the petitioner in terms of Letters of Credit (Annexure B-1 to B-4).

c. issue appropriate writ order or direction requiring Respondent No.3 and 4 to release payment of Rs. 83,54,273.00 Along with interest @ 24% p.a. to Petitioner forthwith.

d. issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing Respondent No.1, 2 and 5 to hold an inquiry against the erring officials of Respondent Bank of India who are responsible for manufacturing and fabricating false documents and after fixing the accountability and responsibility of the concerned officials, initiate appropriate criminal proceedings and such other proceedings as may be deemed fit and proper in the case.

e. costs of the proceedings be also awarded to the petitioner in the case.

f. such other and further order which in the circumstances this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed in favor of the Petitioner. ''

4. While this writ petition was pending admission before this Court, the petitioner also instituted a suit being Suit No.2851/99 against BOI and HRL, claiming the following reliefs:-

''a) Decree for a sum of Rs.87,99,121/- in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

b) Grant further interest from the date of the institution of the Suit till realisation of decretal amount @ 24% p.a.;

c) Cost of proceedings;

d) Such other and further order which in the circumstances this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.''

5. The sum of Rs.87,99,121/- that was claimed in the suit was based upon the calculation set out in paragraph 20 of the plaint which clearly indicates that the principal amount claimed was Rs.83,54,273/- and the rest was by way of interest thereon up to the date of filing of the plaint. As such, the principal amounts claimed in the writ petition in prayer 'c' thereof and in the plaint were identical. A comparison of the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition and the plaint reveals that prayers 'a' 'b' and 'c' in this petition are covered by the reliefs claimed in the plaint. Prayers 'e' and 'f' of the present writ petition are the prayers with regard to costs and further orders. Consequently, we are left with only prayer 'd' of this writ petition which, apparently, is not covered by the reliefs claimed in the plaint. I shall deal with this prayer later on.

6. The suit filed by the petitioner was under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and was disposed of by a judgment and/or decree dated 21.04.2003 by a learned single judge of this Court. Insofar as HRL was concerned, the benefit of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was extended to it and the suit was dismissed against it without prejudice to any pending legal action and also without prejudice to any action that the Bank may initiate against HRL for the recovery of the sums paid out by the Bank as a consequence of the decree and or its liability under the letters of credit which were the subject matter of the suit. Insofar as BOI was concerned, leave to defend the suit was declined to it and the suit was decreed in favor of the petitioner (plaintiff) for the sum of Rs.87,99,121/- together with interest thereupon @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the decreed amount.

7. These facts reveal that insofar as prayers 'a', 'b' and 'c' of the writ petition are concerned, they do not at all survive in view of the decree granted in the said suit. Moreover, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition were based purely on the contractual and commercial relations between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondents on the other. The refusal of the BOI to make payment under a letter of credit, for whatever reasons, cannot be made the subject matter of a writ petition. The remedy of a civil suit is the appropriate remedy and the petitioner has already availed of it and has succeeded in it. I fail to understand as to how the petitioner can still insist upon pursuing the present writ petition. In the first place, even de hors the question of filing of the civil suit and it being decreed, the disputes were purely in the arena of private law and did not have any public law element. In Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal v. B.D. Aggarwal: , the Supreme Court held:-

''28. A writ petition is filed in public law remedy. The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contradistinguished from a dispute involving public law character.''

(Also See Mr D.M. Talwar v. Delhi Development Authority: ).

8. Had the contractual relations between the petitioner and the respondents emnated from a statutory contract, then, perhaps, elements of public law might have been involved. The relationships between the parties here are not founded upon a statutory contract. The exact nature of a statutory contract has been been clearly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of India Industrial Power Limited v. State of MP: at page 387. No further discussion on this aspect of the matter is needed because the contract in question in the present writ petition is not a statutory contract. The disputes herein are not in the field of public law but are clearly and purely in the domain of private law. They have to be decided under general principles of contract and, in fact, they have been so decided as evidenced by the judgment and/or decree in the Suit No.2851/99. A writ petition would not be maintainable for the reliefs claimed.

9. Despite this clear position, Mr Girdhar Govind, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, did not relent and made a valiant, but futile attempt at showing that the writ petition was maintainable. He referred to the following decisions:-

i) M/s Hyderabad Commercials v. Indian Bank and Others: ;

ii) Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani: ;

iii) Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd and Another v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Another: ;

iv) The Gujrat State Financial Corporation v. M/s Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd: ;

v) The D.F.O. South Kheri and Others v. Ram Sanehi Singh: ;

vi) Smt Asha Goel v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others: AIR 1989 6 Company Cases 710.

In the context of the discussions above, these decisions would have no applicability and would be of no use to the petitioner. It would be pre-posterous to suggest that a writ petition would be maintainable for the same set of reliefs which are purely private law reliefs and in respect of which the petitioner, having filed a civil suit, has also had the benefit of a judgment and/or decree in its favor.

10. Now, only the issue of prayer 'd' of the writ petition remains to be dealt with. By this prayer, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 5 to hold an enquiry against the officials of BOI, who allegedly erred and were responsible for allegedly manufacturing and fabricating false documents and for fixing the responsibility and accountability of the concerned officials of BOI and for the lodgement of appropriate criminal proceedings. The allegations on which this prayer is based are merely allegations at best. The officials against whom these allegations have been made have not been named nor are there any specific allegations with regard to any fabrication of documents. In fact, no material has been placed on record to indicate the commission of any of the alleged acts. No police complaint for forgery or falsification has been filed against any of the officials of BOI. Therefore, the allegations are vague, bereft of material particulars and in any case a finding thereon would require not only the presence of the persons against whom the allegations have been made, but also an enquiry into disputed questions of fact. Neither those persons have been made parties to the writ petitions nor can this Court go into the issues involving such disputed questions of fact.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-.