Delhi High Court
Intergest India International ... vs General Manager  Uoi & Ors. on 7 November, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.11.2017
+ LPA 707/2017
INTERGEST INDIA INTERNATIONAL LTD...... Appellant
versus
GENERAL MANAGER - UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Pankaj Kumar Singh and Mr Harsh Gauyam.
For the Respondent : Mr Anurag Ahluwalia for R-2 & 3.
Mr Harsh Kumar Gautam, Ms Suman Lata,
Advocates with Mr Brahm Dutt, Director
Intergest.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
CM No.39915/2017(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM Nos.39914/2017(delay in filing appeal for two days),
39916/2017(delay in re-filing appeal for eight days)
For the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are
allowed. The delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA 707/2017
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the Single Judge's decision dismissing
its petition in limine.
2. Briefly, the petitioner was regularly transacting with the Erstwhile
USSR; it claims that certain goods were exported and approximately Rs.11
crores is due as consideration towards the export proceeds. According to
the averments in the writ petition, repeated representations/letters were
addressed to the Authorities including the Government of India and the
Reserve Bank of India (since the Committee had been set up in the wake of
the dissolution of the USSR, which resulted in the financial cure).
3. It was urged that the writ petitioner's representations were replied to
sometimes and eventually, it became aware through queries under the Right
to Information Act, 2005, that an amount equivalent or about Rs.7.2 crores
was remitted to another exporter, who was M/s. Techno Craft.
4. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had approached Civil Court
for injunctive relief on an earlier occasion and had eventually prosecuted
that course before the Supreme Court when its Special Leave Petition was
dismissed.
5. The Single Judge was of the opinion that the petition was highly
belated and could not, therefore, be entertained. He was of the opinion that
the writ petitioner could not merely rest on averments that it had continued
to represent but rather should have taken active steps to prosecute its claim.
6. The Court notices that in the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank of
India, averments were made that amounts were received by it and were
remitted back to the Reserve Bank of India.
7. Relevant extracts of the counter-affidavit are as follows:-
***** ***** *****
"1. In regard to para 1, it is submitted that as far as the
respondent No.1 - Bank is concerned, there is reportedly a
copy of Fax message dated 09.12.1994 purporting to convey
effecting of payment of INR 108 million to Deutsche Bank as
per instructions of Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs of
USSR (BEFQA). However, the respondent No.1 Bank has no
such record as to accept the above Fax message as authentic
since the matter is 20 years old and the related record stands
destroyed as per the Bank's guidelines. It is further submitted
that account of BEFA was closed as far back as on
10.04.1992 with the balance in the account if any having been
remitted to Central Account with RBI vide IOM
No.MSOB:AGM:MKD:112 dated 18.07.2011. It is further
submitted that the respondent No.1 does not hold the amount
mentioned in any of the accounts whatsoever. In view of the
above submissions, the contents of the said para are denied in
toto.
***** ***** *****
5. In regard to para 5, it is submitted that as far as the
respondent No.1 Bank is concerned, the respondent No.1
Bank has no such record as to accept the above Fax message
as authentic since the matter is 20 years old and the related
record stands destroyed as per the Bank's guidelines. It is
further submitted that account of BEFA was closed as far
back as on 10.04.1992 with the balance in the account if any
having been remitted to Central Account with RBI vide IOM
No.MSOB: AGM: MKD : 112 dated 18.07.2011. It is further
submitted that the respondent No.1 does not hold the amount
mentioned in any of the accounts whatsoever. In view of the
above submissions, the contents of the said para are denied in
toto.
36. In regard to para 1, it is submitted that as far as the
respondent No.1 - Bank is concerned, there is reportedly a
copy of Fax message dated 09.12.1994 purporting to convey
effecting of payment of INR 108 million to Deutsche Bank as
per instructions of Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs of
USSR (BEFQA). However, the respondent No.1 Bank has no
such record as to accept the above Fax message as authentic
since the matter is 20 years old and the related record stands
destroyed as per the Bank's guidelines. It is further submitted
that account of BEFA was closed as far back as on
10.04.1992 with the balance in the account if any having been
remitted to Central Account with RBI vide IOM
No.MSOB:AGM:MKD:112 dated 18.07.2011. It is further
submitted that the respondent No.1 does not hold the amount
mentioned in any of the accounts whatsoever. In view of the
above submissions, the contents of the said para are denied in
toto."
8. It is evident that some amounts are said to have been remitted
pursuant to some arrangement entered into by the Union after inter se
disputes with respect to remittances was settled with the Central Bank of
the Erstwhile USSR (whose assets and liabilities were taken over by the
Russian Foreign Bank).
9. It facially appears to the Court that the petitioner continued and
persisted to claim amounts, however, its claims were not specifically
addressed to - perhaps because no writ petition or civil action was
launched. It also appears that some amounts were remitted to the Central
Account - it appears from the averments extracted above, in the Bank of
India's affidavit at no less than three places.
10. Having regard to all these circumstances, the Reserve Bank of India
is hereby directed to look into the matter and after verifying such material,
as may exist with it or what is presented by the petitioner and also having
regard to the materials and documentary evidence, which may be
forthcoming from the Bank of India, it may pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
11. The Reserve Bank of India shall endeavour to complete the process
within 12 weeks from today.
12. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not be construed in any
manner as re-opening the issue with respect to payments made to M/s.
Techno Craft or any other party, the facts of whose case are not before the
Court.
13. The Appeal is disposed of.
14. Copy of the order shall be marked Dasti without process fee to the
Reserve Bank of India, who shall be served directly.
15. Order Dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
(JUDGE)
November 07, 2017
'Sn'
