Himachal Pradesh High Court
Recovery vs State Of U. P. (2019) on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2011
Between:-
RECOVERY
BRANCH,
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ASSET
r MANAGEMENT
DALAMAL HOUSE,
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-
400021 THROUGH ITS
MANAGER........
...APPELLANT
(SH. AJAY KUMAR SR. ADVOCATE
WITH MR. ROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SSI
BRANCH, BADDI, TEHSIL
NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN
THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
2. MESSERS ALLIANCE BIOTECH,
440/3, VILLAGE KATHA, BADDI,
TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT
SOLAN THROUGH ITS PARTNER
SHRI NAVNEET DHAWAN.
3. RAJAT PHARMACEUTICAL
CHEMICLAS LIMITED, RAJAT
ENCLAVE, 102-103/A, WING A
GAYATRI DARSHAN, THAKUR
COMPLEX KANDIVALI (EAST)
MUMBAI 400101 THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2022 20:01:03 :::CIS
2
(SH. K. D. SOOD, SR. ADVOCATE
WITH SH. HET RAM THAKUR,
ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT
.
NO. 1.
SH. RAJNISH MANIKTALA, SR.
ADVOCATE WITH SH. NARESH
VERMA, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 2.
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3.
RESERVED ON: 29.09.2022
This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:-
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Writ Court
whereby it has directed the appellant to credit a sum of
Rs.81,74,190/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f.
15.09.2008 till the amount is paid to the State Bank of India,
Baddi and further to pay costs of Rs. 1 lac to the State Bank of
India, the appellant-PNB has filed the instant appeal.
2. The parties shall be referred to as the 'writ petitioner'
and the 'writ respondents'.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-M/s
Alliance Biotech, a partnership firm engaged in the
manufacturing of pharmaceutical products entered into an
agreement with respondent No. 3 - Rajat Pharmaceutical
Chemicals Limited, under which respondent No. 3 had
exclusive right to market the products manufactured by the
petitioner.
.
4. In terms of this agreement, the petitioner was
supplying goods to respondent No. 3 and irrevocable Letter of
Credit was issued at the instance of respondent No. 3 by
respondent No. 2-Punjab National Bank (for short 'PNB') in
favour of the writ petitioner for an amount not exceeding to Rs.
82,30,000/-.
5.
The letter of credit was initially valid till 12.09.2008
which date admittedly was extended to 15.09.2008. Respondent
No. 1 i.e. State Bank of India (for short 'SBI'), which was the
advising Bank informed the writ petitioner on 24.06.2008 that all
bills drawn in conformity with the terms of letter of credit shall be
honoured.
6. During the course of agreement, the writ petitioner
supplied pharmaceutical goods from time to time and also
received the payment for the same. The goods worth Rs.
81,74,190/- were dispatched by the petitioner and the relevant
documents were lodged with the advising bank i.e. respondent
No. 1 -SBI on 13.09.2008 as is evident from Annexure P-5
appended with the writ petition. The copy of the same was also
addressed to respondent No. 2-PNB.
7. The writ petitioner lodged its claim with respondent
No.1-SBI, who negotiated the bills and credited an amount of
.
Rs.79,90,383/- after deducting interest and negotiation
commission to the account of the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, writ respondent No. 2-PNB vide
its letter dated 27.08.2008 (which the PNB alleges was issued on
27.09.2008 but wrongly shown to be 27.08.2008) sent to the SBI
expressed its inability to negotiate the documents in view of the
discrepancies it observed and the same are enumerated below:-
"We are in receipt of documents under our L/C No. 025608
while scrutinizing the documents, we observed the
following discrepancies:
1. Photocopy of certificate of Analises submitted of
original.
2. MRT is not approved by IBA
3. Delivery challan not accepted by opener.
In view of the above, we are unable to negotiate
the documents. You are requested to take up the matter
with the beneficiary to remove the discrepancies.
Meanwhile, we are holding the said documents at your risk
and responsibility and treating the documents on
collection basis."
9. Writ respondent No. 3-Rajat Pharmaceuticals
Chemicals Ltd., which received the goods, sent a letter on
11.10.2008 to the PNB asking it to accept the letter of credit as it
is i.e. with all discrepancies, however, the PNB did not accede to
the request and on 15.10.2008 wrote a letter to the SBI
that it would only make payment if funds are available in the
account of respondent No. 3.
.
10. The SBI, in turn, sent a letter dated 21.10.2008 to
the petitioner whereby it was informed that even though it had
discounted the documents on 18.09.2008 but since the PNB had
not accepted these documents, they were debiting the amount
to the account of the petitioner.
11.
This constrained the writ petitioner to send a legal
notice to the respondents. Thereafter, certain negotiations also
took place between the parties but the same did not yield any
result, constraining the petitioner to file a writ petition being
CWP No. 3007 of 2009, for grant of the following reliefs:-
i. Respondent No. 1 and 2 may be directed to enforce and
honour the irrevocable Letter of Credit and accordingly
make the payment to the tune of Rs. 81,74,130/- to the
petitioner.
ii. That the respondents may be directed to pay the
damages to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. Ten lacs.
iii. That the petitioner may be held entitled to interest @
18% per annum from 13.09.2008 up to the date of
payment.
iv. That the respondents may be directed to refund the
amount of interest charged as per Annexure P-5 for a
period of 90 days whereas the payment as per Letter of
Credit remained with the petitioner only from 13.09.2008
to 21.10.2008 alongwith commission charged.
12. Respondent No. 1- SBI filed its reply wherein it was
stated that it was always ready and willing to honour the letter of
.
credit but since the principal bank i.e. PNB, had expressed its
inability to honour the letter of credit, as according to it, it had
no option but to go by the directions of the PNB. The SBI had
clearly stated that the documents in question were lodged with it
on 13.09.2008 i.e. before the expiry of letter of credit and that
13.
r to
the PNB had ante dated its letter and showed that it was written
on 27.08.2008.
According to the SBI, the letter was received by its
branch at Baddi on 11.10.2008. Thereafter, on 21.10.2008, the
PNB withdrew from the commitment to the letter of credit and
directed that the documents be "sent for correction".
14. It is the specific stand of the SBI that it is the PNB,
which is at fault and in case the PNB is directed to reimburse the
SBI, it will honour the letter of credit. The SBI has, in fact, stated
that the objections as raised by the writ petitioner were not
proper and the rejection otherwise was after the prescribed
period, that too, by assigning new reasons and taking up new
grounds.
15. The PNB filed its reply wherein it was stated that the
letter of credit was presented to it after the expiry of the date
and, therefore, it had no obligation much less responsibility to
pay the amount. According to it, many discrepancies were there
in the documents sent by the petitioner and various
.
communications were issued in this regard. However, the main
ground as canvassed before the learned writ Court was also that
the letter of credit has been presented after the expiry date for
which the PNB was not responsible. As regards the ante dating
letter dated 27.08.2008, it was contended that the same was a
mistake and ought to be read as 27.09.2008.
16. In addition to the aforesaid, another objection taken
in the reply was that as per the letter of credit, goods had to be
sent by air and this condition was also breached by the parties.
17. Lastly, the PNB contended that the documents which
were received by the SBI on 13.09.2008 were received in its
Branch on 20.09.2008 that after the date of expiry which was
15.09.2008.
18. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition as
aforesaid, constraining respondent No. 2-PNB to file the instant
appeal.
19. The first contention raised by Shri Ajay Kumar,
learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Rohit, learned
Advocate, is regarding the very maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that obligations arising out of contractual
cannot be enforced or determined by the learned Writ Court.
However, we find no merit in the said contention.
.
20. In coming to such conclusion, we need not to
multiply authorities and it would be suffice if we refer to three
fairly recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. In Surya Constructions vs. State of U. P. (2019)
16 SCC 794, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the
22.
r to
State behaves arbitrarily even in the realm of contract, the High
Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indsil
Hydro Power and Manganese Limited vs. State of Kerala
and others (2020) 16 SCC 279, held that even though the
agreement that was entered between the appellant and KSEB,
was undoubtedly a matter in the contractual arena, however, it
was further held that it was now a settled principle of law that
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not
excluded in the matters pertaining to contract. The State and its
agencies are duty bound to act in a manner, which is fair and
transparent. It is further held that the State and its
instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily in dealings with private
parties.
23. Lastly, we may refer to the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme court in Uttar Pradesh Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd. And another vs. CG Power
and Industrial Solutions Limited and another AIR 2021 SC
.
2411, wherein it was held that it is now settled by plethora of
decisions of this Court that relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of
contract. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 being
discretionary, the High Court usually refrain from entertaining
writ petition which involves adjudication of disputed questions of
fact which may require analysis of evidence of witnesses. Lastly,
it was held that even monetary relief can also be granted to the
petitioner.
24. Thus, we have no difficulty in concluding that the
writ petition as filed by the writ petitioner was maintainable
before the learned Writ Court.
25. It is then contended that the findings recorded by the
learned Writ Court are not sustainable as it has not referred to
any of annexures appended with the writ petition by either of the
parties. Even this contention by itself, in absence of the
appellant's inability to point out any perversity in the judgment
holds no water.
26. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the grounds as taken by the PNB for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner have not at all been dealt with by the
learned Writ Court.
.
27. We may, at this stage, remind ourselves that this
Court is dealing with the intra-court appeal where the scope of
interference is quite limited as it is only in the cases where the
order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, the
interference in an intra-court appeal be justified. There has to be
competent illegality so as to warrant interference.
28. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported
by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Roma sonkar vs. Madhya Pradsh State Public Service
Commission and another (2018) 17 SCC 106, wherein while
dealing with the scope of intra-court appeal, it was observed as
under:
"Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier
of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of
the power of the High Court but that does not mean that
the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench.
Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called
upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to
consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by
the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division
Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by
deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to
the learned Single Judge."
29. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, it
would be noticed that initially the PNB came up with three
.
grounds as to why it did not accede to the letter of credit,
however, later it added two more grounds, which obviously were
not available to it in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., 1978 (1) SC 405
wherein it was held that When a statutory functionary makes an
order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by
the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh
reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an
order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on
account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds
later brought out.
30. Now adverting to the initial ground of rejection, it
would be noticed that the first ground of rejection as accorded by
the PNB that the documents presented to the PNB by the SBI
vide letter dated 13.09.2008 were received by the PNB after the
expiry of the date of the letter of credit i.e. 20.09.2008, as
against the expiry date which was 15.09.2008.
31. Record reveals that after dispatch of goods on
12.08.2008 and 21.08.2008, the documents were presented to
SBI, Baddi on 13.09.2008 and the expiry date of letter of credit
was 15.09.2008.
.
32. It was not disputed before the learned Writ Court as
well as before this Court that the issue in question is governed
and is required to be determined by the provisions as contained
in Uniform, Customs and Practice (UCP) 600, which read as
under:-.
"UCP 600 - Article 6
"Availability, Expiry Date and Place for Presentation
a. A credit must state the bank with which it is available
or whether it is available with any bank. A credit available
with a nominated bank is also available with the issuing
bank.
b. A credit must state whether it is available by sight
payment, deferred payment, acceptance or negotiation.
c. A credit must not be issued available by a draft drwn
on the applicant.
d. i. A credit must state an expiry date for presentation.
An expiry date stated for honour or negotiation will be
deemed to be an expiry date for presentation.
ii. The place of the bank with which the credit is available
is the place for presentation. The place for presentation
under a credit available with any bank is that of any bank.
A place for presentation other than that of the issuing
bank is in addition to the place of the issuing bank.
e. Except as provided in sub-article 29(a), a presentation
by or on behalf of the beneficiary must be made on or
before the expiry date.
UCP 600 - Article 7
Issuing Bank Undertaking
a. Provided that the stipulated documents are presented
to the nominated bank or to the issuing bank and that
.
they constitute a complying presentation, the issuing
bank must honour if the credit is available by:
Xxx xxx xxx
b. An issuing bank is irrevocably bound to honour as of
the time it issues the credit.
c. An issuing bank undertakes to reimburse a nominated
bank that has honoured or negotiated a complying
presentation and forwarded the documents to the issuing
bank. Reimbursement for the amount of a complying
presentation under a credit available by acceptance or
deferred payment is due at maturity, whether or not the
nominated bank prepaid or purchased before maturity. An
issuing bank's undertaking to reimburse a nominated
bank is independent of the issuing bank's undertaking to
the beneficiary.
Xxx xxx xxxx
UCP 600 - Article 14
Xxx xxx xxx
b. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a
confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank shall each
have a maximum of five banking days following the day
of presentation to determine if a presentation is
complying. This period is not curtailed or otherwise
affected by the occurrence on or after the date of
presentation of any expiry date or last day for
presentation.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx
UCP 600 - Article 16
Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice
a. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a
confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank determines
that a presentation does not comply, it may refuse to
honour or negotiate.
.
b. When an issuing bank determines that a presentation
does not comply, it may in its sole judgment approach
the applicant for a waiver of the discrepancies. This does
not, however, extend the period mentioned in sub-article
14(b).
c. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a
confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank decides to
refuse to honour or negotiate, it must give a single notice
to that effect to the presenter. The notice must state:
i. that the bank is refusing to honour or negotiate;
and
ii. each discrepancy in respect of which the bank
refuses to honour or negotiate; and
iii. a) that the bank is holding the documents pending
further instructions from the presenter; or
b) that the issuing bank is holding the documents
until it receives a waiver from the applicant and
agrees to accept it, or receives further instructions
from the presenter prior to agreeing to accept a
waiver; or
c) that the bank is returning the documents; or
d) that the bank is acting in accordance with the
instructions previously received from the presenter.
d. The notice required in sub-article 16(c) must be given
by telecommunication or, if that is not possible, by other
expeditious means no later than the close of the fifth
banking day following the day of presentation.
e. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a
confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank may, after
providing notice required by sub-article 16(c) (iii) (a) or
(b), return the documents to the presenter at any time.
f. If an issuing bank or a confirming bank fails to act in
accordance with the provisions of this article, it shall be
.
precluded from claiming that the documents do not
constitute a complying presentation.
g. When an issuing bank refuses to honour or a
confirming bank refuses to honour or negotiate and has
given notice to that effect in accordance with this article,
it shall then be entitled to claim a refund with interest, of
any reimbursement made.
UCP 600 - Article 17
Original Documents and Copies
a. At least one original of each document stipulated in the
credit must be presented.
b. A bank shall treat as an original any document bearing
an apparently original signature, mark, stamp, or label of
the issuer of the document, unless the document itself
indicates that it is not an original.
c. Unless a document indicates otherwise, a bank will also
accept a document as original if it:
i. appears to be written, typed, perforated or
stamped by the document issuer's hand; or
ii. appears to be on the document issuer's original
stationery; or
iii. states that it is original, unless the statement
appears not to apply to the document presented.
d. If a credit requires presentation of copies of
documents, presentation of either originals or copies is
permitted.
e. If a credit requires presentation of multiple documents
by using terms such as "in duplicate". "in two fold" or "in
two copies", this will be satisfied by the presentation of at
least one original and the remaining number in copies,
except when the document itself indicates otherwise.
33. In terms of Article 6 UCP 600(d):-
i. A credit must state an expiry date for presentation.
.
An expiry date stated for honour or negotiation will
be deemed to be an expiry date for presentation;
(ii) the place with which the credit is available is the
place for presentation. The place for presentation
under a credit available with any bank is that of any
bank and the place for presentation other than that
of the issuing bank is in addition to the place of the
issuing bank.
34. As per Article 2 - Presentation means delivery of
documents under credit to the issuing bank or nominated bank
and nominated bank means the bank with which the credit is
available or any bank in case of a credit available with any bank.
In case of credit available with any bank, therefore, the
documents were required to be presented and in fact were
presented to the nominated bank i.e. SBI on 13.09.2008 i.e.
much before the expiry date for honour, which was fixed for
15.09.2008.
35. As observed above, there is no dispute regarding the
applicability of UCP 600 as quoted above. Under the UCP 600
there is a bank known as issuing bank, which issues the letter of
credit. Then there is another bank known as nominated bank
with which credit is available. In the instant case, the PNB was
the issuing bank and the SBI was the nominated bank. As per the
.
UCP 600, the date of expiry is required to be given on all the
documents which are required to be presented before the date of
expiry. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the expiry
date was specified i.e. 15.09.2008. The place where the credit is
available is the place for presentation unless specified otherwise.
36.
It is evidently clear from the UCP 600 that the place
where the credit is available with any bank is that of any bank.
As regards the instant case, a credit was also available with the
SBI and, therefore, presentation before the expiry date could
have been made to the SBI. As a matter of fact, the original
letter of credit itself indicates that the credit was available for
negotiation with any bank. Therefore, the objections of the PNB
that the SBI could not have negotiated the letter of credit is not
sustainable, as has rightly been concluded by the learned Writ
Court.
37. The issuing bank-PNB is irrevocably bound to honour
the letter of credit. Article 14 of the UCP 600 makes it mandatory
that nominating bank, confirming bank or the issuing bank shall
each have maximum five banking days following the day of
presentation to determine if the presentation complies with the
terms and conditions. As regards the instant case, it cannot be
disputed that the documents were submitted to the nominated
bank-SBI on 13.09.2008.
.
38. On 18.09.2008, the SBI sent a communication to the
PNB that it had negotiated the bill of exchange and claimed an
amount of Rs. 81,74,190/-. The PNB vide its letter purported to
be written on 27.08.2008 refused to honour the claim on the
grounds that (i) certificate of analysis was not in original; (ii) that
the motor transport operator was not approved by the Indian
Banks Association and; (iii) the delivery of challan was not
accepted by the opener.
39. All these objections were not found to be correct by
the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to differ with such
findings as it stand proved on record that the certificate of
analysis had been submitted in original to the SBI. That apart,
the motor transport operator was duly approved by the Indian
Bank Association and as regards the opener of the letter of credit
the same was waived off alongwith all objections.
40. As regards the further contention of the appellant
that the goods were required to be sent by air as per the letter of
credit. We again do not find any substance in the said contention
because the original letter of credit as available on the writ
record as Annexure P-2 (Page-19) was thereafter modified vide
letter dated 26.04.2008 (Annexure P-4) and the relevant portion
whereof reads as under:-
.
"1. On Page No. 3 under Special instructions-clause No. 7
to be read as Documents to be presented within 30 days
after the date of transport documents, but within the
validity of this credit i.e. 15.09.2008.
2. Date of expiry to be read as 15.09.2008.
3. Shipment to be read as dispatch from BADDI to Mumbai
for transportation to Mumbai."
41.
All these facts have been taken note of by the
learned Writ Court when it proceeded to hold that the letter of
credit provided that it should have been accompanied by the
Airport bills but the PNB in its letter dated 26.08.2008 had
clarified that the date of expiry would be read as 15.09.2008 and
the shipping was to be read as dispatch from BADDI to Mumbai
for transportation to Mumbai, meaning thereby, the goods could
have been transported by road. Admittedly, Baddi does not have
an airport and, therefore, the goods could not have been
transported by air as it was humanly not possible.
42. It is thereafter vehemently argued by Shri Ajay
Kumar, learned Senior Advocate that the petition filed by the
petitioner was required to be dismissed at threshold as
respondent Nos. 1 and 3 did not comply with the Article 17 of the
UCP 600. We further find no merit in this contention. Article 17
UCP 600 provides (a) at least one original of each document
stipulated in credit must be presented; (b) how to treat the
document as original.
.
43. As per the letter dated 27.08.2009, it is claimed that
photocopy of certificate of analysis was only submitted, whereas
the letter dated 04.11.2008 (Page 116) clarifies that the
certificate in original had been given. That apart the SBI clearly
acknowledges that the certificate in original had been given.
Moreover, the letter dated 27.08.2009 (the date of which is
disputed) was written and sent after five banking days, therefore,
writ respondent No. 2 is otherwise estopped from claiming that
the documents were not complied as per Article 14 and 16 of
UCP 600. The relevant portion of Articles 14 and 16 read as
under:-
"Article 14(b)-An....issuing bank shall have maximum of
five banking days following the day of presentation to
determine if a presentation is complying.
Article 16(a) When...issuing bank determines that the
presentation does not comply, it may refuse to honour.
(c) When....issuing bank decides to refuse to honour, it
must give a single notice to the presenter.
(d) the notice must be given by telecommunication or by
other expeditious means not later than the close of the
fifth banking day following the day of presentation.
(f) If..... the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with the
provisions of this article, it shall be precluded from
claiming that documents did not constitute complying
presentation."
44. Records reveal the receipt of documents on
20.09.2008 (Page 74). Since 20.09.2008 was Saturday, a non-
.
banking day, therefore, the five banking days starts from
22.09.2008 and the same ends on 26.09.2008, which was Friday.
Whereas notice in the instant case was prepared after the close
of fifth banking day i.e. on 27.09.2008 (Saturday) and was
couriered only on 29.09.2008. Thus, it stands proved that the
notice was not given within the stipulated time, therefore, in
terms of Clause (f), the PNB is precluded from claiming that
documents did not constitute complying presentation.
45. As observed above, in addition to the aforesaid
grounds, the PNB in its reply took three additional grounds, which
otherwise are not available to it but have been dealt with by the
learned Single Judge and we see no reason to go into the
correctness of such findings as these additional grounds, as
observed above, would not available to the PNB in view of the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder
Singh's case (supra).
46. It is lastly contended by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned
Senior Advocate that the costs of Rs. One Lac, as imposed upon
the petitioner be reduced, if not completely waived off.
47. It is relevant to first ascertain as to why the learned
Writ Court imposed costs of Rs. One Lac and the same is
contained in operative portion of the judgment, which reads as
under:-
.
......In view of the highly unethical stand of the PNB
and in view of the fact that it has taken totally false pleas
and also in view of the fact that it appears to have ante
dated certain documents, I fee it is a fit case where the
Punjab National Bank should be burdened with exemplary
costs. Accordingly the Punjab National Bank is directed to
pay costs of RS. 1 lac to the petitioner. The Punjab
National Bank shall pay the entire amount alongwith
costs, as indicated hereinabove, to the State Bank of India
and the petitioner on or before 15th June, 2011.
48. We have examined the aforesaid reasoning and find
that the stand of the PNB indeed is not tenable and may also
verge around being cantankerous but there is no substantive
proof to establish that the documents had been ante dated.
Nonetheless, the PNB could have conveniently avoided the
litigation by coming up with more fair and equitable stand.
49. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it
appropriate to reduce the cost from Rs. 1,00,000/-to Rs. 25,000/-,
which shall be paid by the PNB, as already directed, to the SBI on
or before 15.11.2022.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit
in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However,
with respect to costs, the judgment passed by the learned Writ
Court shall stand modified as above. Parties are left to bear their
own costs.
.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
11 th
October, 2022
(sanjeev)
r to (Virender Singh)
Judge
