The State Trading Corporation Of ... vs State Bank Of India & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 5198 Del

$~30.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1145/2009
      THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
                                                       ..... Plaintiff
                   Through: Mr. Atul Shanker Mathur, Advocate
                   with Ms. Nimita Kaul and Mr. Vivek Mathur,
                   Advocates

                          versus

      STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS                ..... Defendants
                   Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate with
                   Mr. Jaskirat Bir Singh, Advocate for D-1.
                   Mr. Sourabh Rath, Advocate for D-3.
                   Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Advocate for D-4.
                   Mr. Neeraj Chaudhri, Advocate with Ms. Saakshi
                   Agrawal, Advocate for D-6.

    CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 08.08.2016

At the outset, counsels for the parties state that the subject matter of the present suit raises a commercial dispute of a specified value. The Registry is directed to re-number the suit as a commercial dispute. I.A.9180/2016 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)

1. The present application has been jointly filed by the plaintiff and the defendants No.1, 3 and 6 stating inter alia that during the pendency of the suit, the parties have arrived at a settlement that was reduced into writing in terms of the MOU dated 13.08.2013 and facilitated during the mediation

proceedings.

2. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff had opened a Letter of Credit dated 30.04.2009 through the defendant No.1/Bank in favour of the defendant No.2, for goods to be supplied. The negotiating banks of the defendant No.2 were defendants No.3 and 4. Some disputes and differences had occurred between the parties with regard to the goods that were to be obtained by the defendant No.2 from the defendant No.5 and supplied to the plaintiff, who was in turn to supply the said goods to the defendants No.6 and 7. Now by virtue of the settlement arrived at between the parties, they have agreed that the defendant No.2 will not insist on encashment of the Letter of Credit opened by the defendant No.1/Bank for and on behalf of the plaintiff and the entire contract between the parties, subject matter of the Letter of Credit, stands cancelled.

3. Counsels for the parties state that though the defendant No.2 in whose favour the Letter of Credit was opened by the plaintiff is not a signatory to the MOU, the negotiating bank on behalf of the defendant No.2, namely, defendant No.3 is a party to the present settlement and defendant No.3 on instructions from defendant No.2 has forwarded a swift message dated 26.02.2014 intimating the defendant No.1/bank that they are not pressing for the payment subject matter of the said Letter of Credit.

4. The Court has perused the present application, which is supported by the affidavits of the authorised representatives of the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 3 and 6. Enclosed with the application are copies of the swift message dated 26.02.2014 dispatched by the defendant No.3 to defendant No.1 and the MOU dated 13.08.2013, duly executed by the plaintiff and the defendants No.1, 3 and 6.

5. As counsels for the parties jointly state that the parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, there appears no legal impediment in accepting the settlement. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement recorded in the MOU dated 13.8.2013.

6. The application is allowed. The MOU dated 13.08.2013 enclosed with the application is taken on record. The suit is disposed of in terms of the said MOU, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement prior to issues being framed in the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to claim refund of the court fees in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

8. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the plaintiff for refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, as per law.

9. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending application.

10. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J AUGUST 08, 2016 rkb/ap