{"id":105963,"date":"2002-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002"},"modified":"2016-11-12T18:59:24","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T13:29:24","slug":"state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) AWC 3243<\/div>\n
Author: D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: D Gupta, S K Kaul<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Devinder Gupta, A.C.J. <\/p>\n
 1. Order  passed on 23.5.2001 by learned  Single<\/p>\n
                       Judge   dismissing   the  application   filed   by<\/p>\n
                       respondent No.  1\/appellant seeking amendment to the<\/p>\n
                       written  statement  is  under  challenge  in  this<\/p>\n
                       appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 2. Facts in brief are that on 6.12.1997 suit was
\n                        filed by the Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs  of<\/p>\n
                       USSR   against  four  defendants  State  Bank   of<\/p>\n
                       Patiala,  being  first defendant;   Sumo  Exports;<\/p>\n
                       Punjab  National Bank; I.C.P. Ruslan and  Kenwright<\/p>\n
                       Limited,  being defendants 2 to 5.  The  plaintiff<\/p>\n
                       claimed  a  decree for  Rs.54,17,632\/-  along  with<\/p>\n
                       future  interest  against defendant No.  1  or  such<\/p>\n
                       other defendants as the Court may deem fit,  inter<\/p>\n
                       alia,  alleging  that they were  carrying  on  the<\/p>\n
                       business   of  banking  in  Russia   and   abroad.<\/p>\n
                       Defendant No.  2 is the  exporter and defendant No.  1<\/p>\n
                       is  the bank of defendant No.  2. Defendant No.  3  is<\/p>\n
                       the    designated  bank  for  plaintiff  for   the<\/p>\n
                       purposes  of  dealing in foreign exchange  on  its<\/p>\n
                       behalf with  Reserve Bank of India, in  accordance<\/p>\n
                       with  the  inter banking arrangement  between  the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff bank and Reserve Bank of India signed on<\/p>\n
                       6.9.1993.  Defendant No.  4 is the Russian  Importer<\/p>\n
                       who had contact with defendant No.  2 and  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No.  5  is  the Russian consignee.  On  26.9.1995  a<\/p>\n
                       contract  was entered into between defendant  No.  2<\/p>\n
                       and  defendant No.  4 for  purchase of  Indian  Long<\/p>\n
                       Grain  White  Rice,  which  was  required  to   be<\/p>\n
                       exported  to Russia.  Plaintiff opened  Letter  of<\/p>\n
                       Credit with defendant No.  1 Bank on 10.10.1995  for<\/p>\n
                       an  amount of Rs.5,035,000.00 and  defendant  No.  6<\/p>\n
                       deposited the said amount with the plaintiff.   It<\/p>\n
                       was  further  alleged that defendant  No.  4  issued<\/p>\n
                       acceptance  letter  confirming  that  it  has   no<\/p>\n
                       objection  in accepting the goods shipped  against<\/p>\n
                       L.C.  dated 10.10.1995.  Sum of  INR  5,035,000.00<\/p>\n
                       was  transferred to the account of defendant  No.  6<\/p>\n
                       by  the plaintiff. Reserve Bank of  India  through<\/p>\n
                       letter  dated  29.3.1996  sent  statement  to   the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff  up  to 5.1.1996 with reference  to  the<\/p>\n
                       said  letter of credit. The plaintiff objected  to<\/p>\n
                       the  debit of the amount and filed  suit  claiming<\/p>\n
                       that  cause  of action had arisen  to  it  against<\/p>\n
                       defendant No.  1 when defendant No.  1 did not  comply<\/p>\n
                       with  the  terms of Letter of Credit and  did  not<\/p>\n
                       sent   shipping   documents  pertaining   to   the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff  bank neither within 21 days as per  the<\/p>\n
                       Letter of Credit nor within the validity period of<\/p>\n
                       Letter  of Credit.  It was alleged that  cause  of<\/p>\n
                       action   finally  arose  on  7.3.1997   when   the<\/p>\n
                       defendants claimed that they were not  responsible<\/p>\n
                       and  that  against defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6  cause<\/p>\n
                       of  action is alleged to have arisen on  26.9.1996<\/p>\n
                       when  defendant No.  1 claimed that  documents  were<\/p>\n
                       sent by defendant No.  2 to defendant No.  5 and  that<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No.  5 had retired the goods.  The  cause<\/p>\n
                       of action also arose when on 19.2.1977 the Customs<\/p>\n
                       Authorities in Moscow informed the plaintiff  bank<\/p>\n
                       that Airway bill representing the said goods  have<\/p>\n
                       not been handed over by the customs authorities. <\/p>\n
 3.                            The  suit was resisted by defendant No.  1  who<\/p>\n
                       filed   its   written  statement   on   8.12.1998.<\/p>\n
                       Replication to the written statement of  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No.  1  was filed by the plaintiff on 3.12.1999.  On<\/p>\n
                       the  same day an application (IA. No.  12386\/99)  was<\/p>\n
                       filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6  read<\/p>\n
                       with  Section 151 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure<\/p>\n
                       praying  that decree be passed  forthwith  against<\/p>\n
                       defendant No.  1 or the other defendants because  of<\/p>\n
                       the   alleged admission of defendant No.  1  in  its<\/p>\n
                       written statement.  Notice of this application was<\/p>\n
                       directed  to be issued to the defendants.   Notice<\/p>\n
                       could not be served on the defendants for want  of<\/p>\n
                       process  fee.  Accordingly,  on  13.7.2000   fresh<\/p>\n
                       notice  was directed to be issued, returnable  for<\/p>\n
                       11.10.2000.   Before  this  application  could  be<\/p>\n
                       taken up for consideration or reply could be filed<\/p>\n
                       by  the  defendants, defendant No.  1  on  25.9.2000<\/p>\n
                       filed  an application under Order 6 Rule  17  read<\/p>\n
                       with  Section 151 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure<\/p>\n
                       seeking leave to amend its written statement. <\/p>\n
 4.                            Defendant  No.  1 alleged that after filing  of<\/p>\n
                       the written statement new facts have come into its<\/p>\n
                       knowledge  because  of which it was  necessary  to<\/p>\n
                       amend  the written statement filed earlier and  to<\/p>\n
                       bring to the notice of the Court new facts,  which<\/p>\n
                       were    absolutely    necessary    for    complete<\/p>\n
                       adjudication on the disputes between the  parties.<\/p>\n
                       The  new fact, which according to  defendant  No.  1<\/p>\n
                       came  to its knowledge was that the stocks  lifted<\/p>\n
                       from  Indira  Gandhi  Airport  never  reached  its<\/p>\n
                       destination  due  to fraud alleged  to  have  been<\/p>\n
                       committed by defendant No.  2 and in connivance with<\/p>\n
                       defendants 4 and 5.  It was prayed  that  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No.  1  be permitted to add  preliminary  objections<\/p>\n
                       No.  D,  E and F and suitably amend the contents  of<\/p>\n
                       various  paragraphs of its written statement.   In<\/p>\n
                       the  application,  it was also  alleged  that  the<\/p>\n
                       Airway  Company,  which  lifted  the  stocks  from<\/p>\n
                       Indira  Gandhi Airport at New Delhi for export  to<\/p>\n
                       Moscow had not been imp leaded as a party defendant<\/p>\n
                       admittedly when the case of the plaintiff has been<\/p>\n
                       that  the  goods  exported  never  reached   their<\/p>\n
                       destination. In the application seeking amendment,<\/p>\n
                       the  proposed  amendments,  which  defendant  No.  1<\/p>\n
                       wanted   to  make  were  not   quoted.    However,<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No.  1  filed  separately  the   proposed<\/p>\n
                       amended   written  statement   incorporating   the<\/p>\n
                       amendments.  The plaintiff vehemently opposed this<\/p>\n
                       application,  inter alia, alleging that  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No.  1 wants to substitute various paragraphs, which<\/p>\n
                       cannot be permitted.  Moreover, in the application<\/p>\n
                       filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC precise amendment,<\/p>\n
                       which  defendant No.  1 wanted to carry out  to  the<\/p>\n
                       original  written  statement filed by it  had  not<\/p>\n
                       been  mentioned. On merits, it was pleaded by  the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff  that  the suit filed by  the  plaintiff<\/p>\n
                       against  defendant No.  1 is based on  I.C.C. Uniform<\/p>\n
                       Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit,  1993<\/p>\n
                       and  defendant  No.  1  had  already  admitted  that<\/p>\n
                       necessary   documents   were  not   collected   and<\/p>\n
                       furnished to the plaintiff by it.  Having admitted<\/p>\n
                       those facts, defendant No.  1 cannot be permitted to<\/p>\n
                       change  the plea of admission made in the  earlier<\/p>\n
                       written  statement  to  a plea of  denial  in  the<\/p>\n
                       proposed  written statement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 5.                            Learned  Single Judge by the  impugned  order<\/p>\n
                       dismissed the application observing that defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1,  who  was seeking amendment to  its  written<\/p>\n
                       statement had failed to assign cogent reasons that<\/p>\n
                       why the pleas, which were  sought to be raised and<\/p>\n
                       which  were available to it earlier, had not  been<\/p>\n
                       raised.   Moreover,  allowing  defendant  No. 1  to<\/p>\n
                       amend  the written statement will have the  effect<\/p>\n
                       of permitting it to convert the plea of  admission<\/p>\n
                       into  plea of denial, which was  not  permissible.<\/p>\n
                       This order is under challenge in this appeal. <\/p>\n
 6.                            We  have considered the submissions  made  at<\/p>\n
                       the  bar  and  have also been  taken  through  the<\/p>\n
                       entire record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 7.                            Learned counsel for the  plaintiff\/respondent<\/p>\n
                       No. 1 tried to support the impugned order by making<\/p>\n
                       similar  submissions, which weighed  with  learned<\/p>\n
                       Single Judge in declining the prayer of  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1  to  amend  the written  statement.   It  was<\/p>\n
                       contended   that  the  application  was   not   in<\/p>\n
                       consonance with the law; precise amendment,  which<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No. 1  wanted  to  incorporate  to   the<\/p>\n
                       original  written  statement, had not  been  quoted<\/p>\n
                       verbatim  in the application filed under  Order  6<\/p>\n
                       Rule  17  C.P.C.;  admission  had  been  made   by<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No. 1 and because of  those  admissions,<\/p>\n
                       valuable  right had accrued to the  plaintiff  for<\/p>\n
                       which an application under Order 12 Rule 6  C.P.C.<\/p>\n
                       was  filed  praying for decree  against  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1  and  in order to make the  said  application<\/p>\n
                       infructuous   and to get over the said  admission,<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No. 1 was seeking to amend  its  written<\/p>\n
                       statement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 8.                             Learned   counsel   for    defendant   No. 1\/<\/p>\n
                       appellant  contended that necessity had arisen  to<\/p>\n
                       seek  amendment after defendant No. 1 came to  know<\/p>\n
                       of certain glaring facts, which go to the root  of<\/p>\n
                       the case. Defendant No. 1 Bank was not proposing to<\/p>\n
                       change  its stand by withdrawing the earlier  plea<\/p>\n
                       but had sought permission to add few facts,  which<\/p>\n
                       had  came to its notice later on.  The  same  does<\/p>\n
                       not amount to changing the plea of admission to  a<\/p>\n
                       plea  of  denial.  Defendant  No. 1  bank  had  not<\/p>\n
                       admitted  expressly  or by  necessary  implication<\/p>\n
                       that  necessary documents were not  collected  and<\/p>\n
                       furnished to the plaintiff, as wrongly alleged  by<\/p>\n
                       the  plaintiff.  Defendant  No. 1  in  the  earlier<\/p>\n
                       written statement had simply pleaded that it was a<\/p>\n
                       matter  of  record.   It would not  amount  to  an<\/p>\n
                       admission  that  defendant No. 1 bank  had  admitted<\/p>\n
                       that  necessary documents were not  collected  and<\/p>\n
                       furnished to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 9.
\n                            Having considered the respective  submissions<\/p>\n
                       made  at the bar, we are of the view that it is  a<\/p>\n
                       fit  case where interference is called for in  the<\/p>\n
                       impugned order passed by learned Single Judge  and<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No. 1 deserves to be permitted to  amend<\/p>\n
                       the  written  statement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 10.                            Suit is still at the initial stage. Trial has<\/p>\n
                       not  yet  commenced. There is also no  doubt  that<\/p>\n
                       because  of  the  alleged pleas  of  admission  of<\/p>\n
                       defendant No. 1 an application under Order 12  Rule<\/p>\n
                       6 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff, which is<\/p>\n
                       still  under  consideration.   Before  we  proceed<\/p>\n
                       further  precisely  it has to be   ascertain  that<\/p>\n
                       whether  any admission was made by defendant  No. 1<\/p>\n
                       in the written statement filed earlier, because of<\/p>\n
                       which  it  can  be said that  valuable  right  had<\/p>\n
                       accrued to the plaintiff, which cannot be defeated<\/p>\n
                       by  amendment.   Defendant  No. 1  in  the  written<\/p>\n
                       statement   filed   earlier  admitted   that   the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff  bank  opened  Letter  of  Credit   with<\/p>\n
                       defendant No. 1 on 10.10.1995 and further  admitted<\/p>\n
                       that  documents  were  required  to  be  presented<\/p>\n
                       within 21 days of the date of shipping.  Defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1  also  admitted that validity  of  Letter  of<\/p>\n
                       Credit expired on 4.1.1996 and also admitted  that<\/p>\n
                       telex dated 28.2.1996 was sent but defendant  No. 1<\/p>\n
                       denied its liability to pay the suit amount to the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff.  Defendant No. 1 also denied that it had<\/p>\n
                       failed  to  do the needful or that  the  plaintiff<\/p>\n
                       bank was made to suffer on account of the  alleged<\/p>\n
                       mistake  of defendant No. 1.  Defendant  No. 1  also<\/p>\n
                       denied  that  it had admitted any mistake  on  its<\/p>\n
                       part.  It  further denied that  the plaintiff bank<\/p>\n
                       refunded the cover amount to defendant No. 6 due to<\/p>\n
                       the  alleged  negligence, mistake  or  failure  of<\/p>\n
                       defendant No. 1 in not sending the documents or not<\/p>\n
                       relying   on   telex  message   dated   28.2.1996.<\/p>\n
                       Defendant  No. 1 in fact admitted the plea  of  the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff   that   there  was  a   fraud   between<\/p>\n
                       defendants   2  and  5  and  also   admitted   the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff’s  case that defendants 4, 5 and 6  were<\/p>\n
                       liable  to reimburse the amount to  the  plaintiff<\/p>\n
                       Bank as the  goods had reached their  destination. <\/p>\n
 11.
\n                              In   case   written  statement   filed   by<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No. 1  earlier is read as  a  whole,  it<\/p>\n
                       cannot be said that defendant No. 1 at ay point  of<\/p>\n
                       time   expressly   or  impliedly   admitted   that<\/p>\n
                       necessary  documents were not collected by it  and<\/p>\n
                       furnished  to  the plaintiff.  Therefore,  to  say<\/p>\n
                       that there was any plea of admission due to  which<\/p>\n
                       the plaintiff had acquired valuable right will not<\/p>\n
                       be  correct on  a careful reading of  the  written<\/p>\n
                       statement  filed  by  defendant No. 1. <\/p>\n
 12.                               It is also a fact that defendant No. 1 in the<\/p>\n
                       application  seeking amendment has not quoted  the<\/p>\n
                       amendments sought to be raised but has appended to<\/p>\n
                       the   application   proposed   written   statement<\/p>\n
                       specifically stating in the application  that what<\/p>\n
                       paras  are  sought  to  be  added  as  preliminary<\/p>\n
                       objections and in which paragraphs of the  written<\/p>\n
                       statement  filed earlier amendments are sought  to<\/p>\n
                       be  incorporated.    Though  it  would  have  been<\/p>\n
                       appropriate that the proposed amendments ought  to<\/p>\n
                       have  been separately quoted in  the  application,<\/p>\n
                       but  the purpose of law can be said to  have  been<\/p>\n
                       duly  served by appending to the  application  the<\/p>\n
                       proposed amended written statement. <\/p>\n
 13.
\n                            The decision of Supreme Court in Heera Lal v.<\/p>\n
                       Kalyan  Mal and others   relied<\/p>\n
                       upon  by learned counsel for  plaintiff\/respondent<\/p>\n
                       No. 1  would  not be applicable to  the  facts  and<\/p>\n
                       circumstances of the case. There can be no dispute<\/p>\n
                       with  the proposition that when  amendment  sought<\/p>\n
                       for in the written statement is of a nature as  to<\/p>\n
                       displace  the  plaintiff’s  case,  it  cannot   be<\/p>\n
                       allowed  in  view  of ratio  of  the  decision  of<\/p>\n
                       Supreme Court in M\/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills<\/p>\n
                       Co. Ltd. and another v. M\/s. Ladha Ram & Co.  , but before the said  principle  is<\/p>\n
                       applied  to  the  facts of the case,  it  must  be<\/p>\n
                       ensured   that  there  is  an  admission  made   by<\/p>\n
                       defendant  in  the  written  statement,  which  if<\/p>\n
                       allowed,  will have the effect of  displacing  the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff’s case.  In the instant case,  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1 is not deleting the pleas, which had  already<\/p>\n
                       been  raised  in the  earlier  written  statement.<\/p>\n
                       Defendant  No. 1 is expanding its pleas,  which  it<\/p>\n
                       had taken  in various paragraphs.  No part of  the<\/p>\n
                       earlier   written  statement  was  sought  to   be<\/p>\n
                       deleted.  Addition of the pleas can be said to  be<\/p>\n
                       an  elaboration to the earlier  written  statement<\/p>\n
                       with  complete  facts and figures because  of  the<\/p>\n
                       information, which defendant No. 1 is stated to  be<\/p>\n
                       now  possessed  with respect to the transaction in<\/p>\n
                       question.  The  proposed amendments rather  go  to<\/p>\n
                       elaborate the alleged fraud, alleged to have  been<\/p>\n
                       committed  by  the other defendants, as  has  been<\/p>\n
                       pleaded   by  plaintiff\/respondent  No. 1  in   its<\/p>\n
                       plaint.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 14.
\n                            The  principle,  which would  apply,  in  the<\/p>\n
                       instant   case,   would  be   as   enunciated   in<\/p>\n
                       B.K. Narayana  Pillai  v. Parmeshwaran  Pillai  and<\/a><\/p>\n
                       another   that Courts are  more<\/p>\n
                       generous in allowing the amendment  of the written<\/p>\n
                       statement  as  the question of prejudice  is  less<\/p>\n
                       likely to operate in that event. The defendant has<\/p>\n
                       a right to take alternative plea in defense which,<\/p>\n
                       however,  is subject to an exception that  by  the<\/p>\n
                       proposed  amendment the other side should  not  be<\/p>\n
                       subjected to injustice and that any admission made<\/p>\n
                       in  favor of the plaintiff is not withdrawn.  All<\/p>\n
                       amendments  of  the pleadings should  be  allowed,<\/p>\n
                       which are necessary for determination of the  real<\/p>\n
                       controversies  in the suit provided  the  proposed<\/p>\n
                       amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause<\/p>\n
                       of  action on the basis of which the original  lis<\/p>\n
                       was  raised or defense taken.    Inconsistent  and<\/p>\n
                       contradictory  allegations  in  negation  to   the<\/p>\n
                       admitted position of facts or mutually destructive<\/p>\n
                       allegations  of facts should not be allowed to  be<\/p>\n
                       incorporated   by  means  of  amendment   of   the<\/p>\n
                       pleadings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 15.
\n                              The  proposed amendment, in our  view,  are<\/p>\n
                       necessary for complete adjudication of the  rights<\/p>\n
                       of  the parties and in order to fix  liability  on<\/p>\n
                       any  of  the  defendants, if any,  liable  to  the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff  for  the amount claimed  in  the  suit.<\/p>\n
                       Reading  of  the  written  statement  has  to   be<\/p>\n
                       purposeful and meaningful, which has to be read as<\/p>\n
                       a  whole.  On  a careful reading  of  the  written<\/p>\n
                       statement, as originally filed by defendant  No. 1,<\/p>\n
                       it cannot be said that defendant No. 1 admitted its<\/p>\n
                       liability   or  that  it  admitted  that  it   had<\/p>\n
                       neglected  or failed to discharge its  obligation.<\/p>\n
                       As  such,  it  cannot be said  that  there  is  an<\/p>\n
                       admission  because  of which a valuable  right  had<\/p>\n
                       accrued  to the plaintiff.  The mere fact that  an<\/p>\n
                       application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was filed to<\/p>\n
                       which  reply had not yet been filed  by  defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1, that by moving an application  it cannot  be<\/p>\n
                       said  that seeking amendment in such  circumstance<\/p>\n
                       would  defeat the right of the plaintiff  to  seek<\/p>\n
                       adjudication   on   the  application.    In   case<\/p>\n
                       defendant  No. 1  is  otherwise  entitled  to  seek<\/p>\n
                       amendment, it would be entitled to seek indulgence<\/p>\n
                       of  the  Court irrespective of the  fact  that  an<\/p>\n
                       application  under  Order 12 Rule  6  C.P.C.   was<\/p>\n
                       pending.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 16.
\n                              Thus  we are of the view that  the  impugned<\/p>\n
                       order is liable to be set aside. As cogent reasons<\/p>\n
                       have  been assigned by defendant No. 1  in  seeking<\/p>\n
                       amendment  that new fact  came to  its  knowledge,<\/p>\n
                       which  fact  is  not disputed  on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is entitled to carry out<\/p>\n
                       the  proposed amendment, which do not  change  the<\/p>\n
                       nature of defense.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 17.
\n                            Consequently,  the  appeal is  allowed.   The<\/p>\n
                       impugned  order  is set aside.  Application  under<\/p>\n
                       Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (IA.9529\/2000) of defendant<\/p>\n
                       No. 1\/appellant  is allowed.  The proposed  amended<\/p>\n
                       written  statement  is  directed to  be  taken  on<\/p>\n
                       record.  Parties are left to bear their respective<\/p>\n
                       costs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) AWC 3243 Author: D Gupta Bench: D Gupta, S K Kaul JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, A.C.J. 1. Order passed on 23.5.2001 by learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent No. 1\/appellant seeking […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs ... on 9 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs ... on 9 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-12T13:29:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T13:29:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2644,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs ... on 9 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T13:29:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs ... on 9 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs ... on 9 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-12T13:29:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T13:29:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002"},"wordCount":2644,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002","name":"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs ... on 9 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T13:29:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-patiala-vs-bank-for-foreign-economic-affairs-on-9-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of Patiala vs Bank For Foreign Economic Affairs … on 9 November, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105963","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105963\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}