{"id":83990,"date":"1996-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996"},"modified":"2015-05-14T05:21:46","modified_gmt":"2015-05-13T23:51:46","slug":"indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996","title":{"rendered":"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: S S Ahmad.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDIAN BANK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA} PVT.LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/08\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS. SAGHIR AHMAD. J.\n<\/p>\n
     These are\ttwo appeals  against the  judgments  of\t the
\nNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The facts\ton record  indicate that  the respondent had
\nentered into  Contract No.31\/89\t with a\t French Firm M\/s STE
\nKolori (for  short, ‘Buyer’)  for supply  of 1 lac metres of
\ncotton\tgrey   sheeting\t of   the  value  of  French  Francs
\n4,37,500\/-. In\tdue course,  the goods\twere shipped  to the
\nBuyer and on 09.06.90, respondent drew two Bills of Exchange
\non the\tBuyer for  French Franc\t 3,50,000\/- and French Franc
\n87,500\/-. The  draft mentioned\tat the top that the Bills of
\nExchange had  to be  co-accepted by  the Buyer’s bank. These
\ndocuments were sent by the appellant to that Bank on 18.6.90
\nas requested  by the respondent but on 9.7.90, the documents
\nwere returned  unpaid. However,\t on the\t instructions of the
\nrespondent, the documents were re-presented to Banque Leumi,
\nParis on  13.7.90. On  9.4.91, on  the instructions  of\t the
\nrespondent, a  telex was  sent to  Banque  Leumi,  Paris  to
\ntransfer the  documents\t to  another  French  Bank,  namely,
\nSociety Lyonnaise  De Banque,  Lyon, France, and on the same
\nday, fresh  Bills of  Exchange dated 6.3.91 were sent to the
\nFrench Bank  at the   request  of the  respondent. In  these
\nBills of  Exchange, there was no clause for co-acceptance by
\nthe French  Bank  which,  however,  returned  the  documents
\nunpaid on 9.8.91.\n<\/p>\n
3.   On 26th  August, 1991, respondent forwarded a fresh set
\nof Bills  of Exchange for being sent to the French Bank. The
\nBills of  Exchange, on their face, specifically provided for
\nacceptance by  the Buyer  and co-acceptance  by\t the  French
\nBank.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It appears\t that the Buyer, namely, M\/s STE Kolori went
\nunder liquidation  and an order was passed by the Commercial
\nCourt at  Lyon, France\tfor winding  up the  firm. The Court
\nalso appointed\ta Liquidator  who wrote to the respondent to
\nfile its claim.\n<\/p>\n
5.   On 1st  January, 1992,  Napean Sea\t Rood Branch  of the
\nappellant at  Bombay wrote  a letter to the French Bank that
\npayment of  the Bills  of Exchange  forwarded to  it earlier
\nmay be\tmade. The French Bank wrote on 9.1.92 that the Bills
\nof Exchange  had not  been  paid  as  the  Buyer  was  under
\nliquidation. The Bank also, during course of correspondence,
\nwrote that  under French Law, co-acceptance by the Bank, was
\nnot permissible\t nor would it have given the Bank Guarantee,
\neven if\t a request  was made in that regard by the appellant
\nfor and\t on behalf of the respondent. It was, at this stage,
\nthat respondent gave a notice dated 26.3.92 to the appellant
\nclaiming the  entire amounts  of the  Bills of\tExchange and
\nsubsequently filed  a complaint before the National Consumer
\nDisputes Redressal  Commission\tat  New\t Delhi\t(for  short,
\n‘Commission’) claiming the value of the goods shipped to the
\nBuyer at  France, from\tthe appellant. The Commission by its
\njudgment and order dated 16.11.93 allowed the claim with the
\ndirection to  the appellant  to pay to the respondent French
\nFrancs 4,10,000\/-  with interest  (in rupees) at the rate of
\n18% on\tthe rupee equivalent of the above amount with effect
\nfrom 31st  December, 1989  together    with  a\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n10,000\/- as  costs to  the respondent.\tIt was\tagainst this
\njudgment that  the claimant  filed,  in\t this  Court,  Civil
\nAppeal No.1737\tof 1995.  The connected Civil Appeal No.1334
\nof 1995\t has been filed against the judgment and order dated
\n13.12.94 by  which the\tCommission has\trejected the  Review
\nPetition filed\tby the\tappellant.  Both  the  appeals\twere
\nadmitted by  this Court on 20.2.95 and are being disposed of
\nby this Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
6.   It may  be stated\tthat the Commission, while decreeing
\nthe claim  of the  respondent, had  relied upon\t the Uniform
\nRules for  Collection made  by the  International Chamber of
\nCommerce as also the covering letter of the respondent dated
\n26th August,  1991 accompanying\t the two  Bills of Exchange,
\nwhich, according  to the  Commission, on  the  face  of\t it,
\nindicated that\tco-acceptance of  the French  Bank had to be
\nobtained and since the appellant, while forwarding the Bills
\nof Exchange  to the  French Bank,  had not  indicated in its
\nletter that  the Bills\thad also  to be\t co-accepted by\t the
\nFrench Bank,  it acted\tnegligently. This  omission was also
\ntreated by the Commission as deficiency in service.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Review of\tthis judgment was sought by the appellant on
\nthe ground  that the  respondent’s letter dated 26th August,
\n1991 accompanying the Bills of Exchange did not mention that
\nco-acceptance of  the French Bank had to be obtained. It was
\npointed out  to the  Commission that  the letter  dated 26th
\nAugust,\t 1991\twhich  was  placed  on\tthe  record  by\t the
\nrespondent and in which a specific mention was made that co-
\nacceptance from French Bank had to be obtained, was a letter
\nforged by  the respondent  to obtain a decree in its favour.
\nThe appellant contended that this letter was never issued to
\nthe appellant.\tThe letter  dated 26.8.91 which was actually
\nissued to  them did  not contain any direction for obtaining
\nco-acceptance by  the French  Bank. The\t Commission  in\t its
\njudgment   dated   13.12.94   (disposing   of\tthe   review
\napplication)  has   considered\tboth  the  letters  and\t has
\nreproduced the\tcontents thereof  but it did not go into the
\nquestion whether  the letter  filed by\tthe respondent was a
\nforged letter or not.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The relevant  portion of  the findings  recorded by the
\nCommission in  its judgment passed on the review application
\nis quoted below :-\n<\/p>\n
     ” The  Opposite Party  – Bank – has
\n     alleged that  the\tletter\tof  26th
\n     August, 1991  from the  Complainant
\n     to the  Opposite Party – Bank which
\n     was the letter with which the Bills
\n     of Exchange  were submitted  to the
\n     Opposite  Party   –  Bank\t –   for
\n     collection,  did  not  specifically
\n     direct  the   Bank\t to  secure  co-
\n     acceptance of the Bills of Exchange
\n     by the  French Bank.  The\tOpposite
\n     Party – Bank – has alleged that the
\n     letter   of   26th\t  August,   1991
\n     submitted as  Annexure ‘A’\t to  the
\n     Complaint petition\t bearing No.2776
\n     was not  the true\tletter\tsent  by
\n     Complainant;  it  is  a  forgery  &
\n     fabrication. The true letter of the
\n     same date\t(i.e. 26th August, 1991)
\n     was No.2775  which was the covering
\n     letter of\tBills  of  Exchange  and
\n     this letter  did  not  contain  the
\n     material instructions regarding co-
\n     acceptance by  the French Bank. For
\n     facility  the   two   letters   are
\n     reproduced below :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  Letter No.2776 of 26th August,
\n     1991 from\tthe Complainant\t to  the
\n     Opposite Party – Bank:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “We   refer   your\t  letter   dated
\n     14.8.1991 informing us about return
\n     of\t documents  Nos.  0005207  (FOBC
\n     17794) and 0005208 (FOBC 17795) for
\n     Rs.   3,50,000   and   FF\t 87,000\/
\n     respectively.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this connection we are enclosing
\n     fresh sets\t of  Bills  of\tExchange
\n     with a  request to kindly represent
\n     the documents  immediately\t to  our
\n     buyer    through\t  M\/s\t Societe
\n     Lyonnaise De  Banque, Lyon, France.
\n     Kindly  note   that  the  Bills  of
\n     Exchange have to be accepted by our
\n     buyer and\tco-accepted by\tthe bank
\n     viz; Societe  Lyonnaise  De  Banque
\n     for payment on 31.12.1991.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)  The\tletter No.2775\tof  26th
\n     August, 1991  from the  Complainant
\n     to the Opposite Party Bank:
\n     “We   refer   your\t  letter   dated
\n     14.8.1991 informing us about return
\n     of\t documents   Nos.0005207   (FOBC
\n     17794) and 0005208 (FOBC 17795) for
\n     Rs.3,50,000   and\t  FF\t87,000\/-
\n     respectively.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t  this\t  connection,\twe   are
\n     enclosing fresh sets of Drafts with
\n     a request\tto kindly  represent the
\n     documents immediately  to our buyer
\n     through M\/s.  Societe Lyonnaise  De
\n     Banque, Lyon, France.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  It will  be noticed  from  the
\n     letters reproduced\t above that  the
\n     material instruction  regarding co-
\n     acceptance of the Bills of Exchange
\n     by the French Bank is absent in the
\n     letter  No.2775   whereas\t it   is
\n     specifically recorded in the letter
\n     No.2776. According\t to the Opposite
\n     Party –  Bank –  the letter of 26th
\n     August No.2776 is a forgery created
\n     by the  Complainant for the purpose
\n     of this  case. During  the\t hearing
\n     there was\tconsiderable  effort  on
\n     the part of the Opposite Party-Bank\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     – to  prove that the letter No.2776
\n     was never\tissued and this has been
\n     forged to\tsupport the  case of the
\n     Complainant whereas the Complainant
\n     vehemently maintained that this was
\n     a genuine letter and that there was
\n     evidence to support its contention.
\n     We did not think it necessary to go
\n     into this question. We only pointed
\n     out to  the Complainant that in the
\n     ordinary course  of correspondence,
\n     in\t its   letter  of   No.2776  the
\n     Complainant should have stated that
\n     this was  in  continuation\t of  its
\n     previous letter  No.2775  and  that
\n     the letter No.2776 was necessitated
\n     by\t the   omission\t in  the  letter
\n     No.2775  of  the  vital  directions
\n     regarding\tco-acceptance\tof   the
\n     Bills of Exchange. We did not get a
\n     satisfactory   answer    to    this
\n     question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  We have  also once  again gone
\n     through the  records of  the  case,
\n     the oral  arguments and the written
\n     submission made  by the  parties at
\n     the  rehearing   limited\tto   the
\n     question  of   the\t letter\t No.2776
\n     being a  forgery and  its effect on
\n     the findings corded in the order of
\n     this Commission  of 16th  November,
\n     1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  It will  be observed\tfrom the
\n     order that\t the Bills  of\tExchange
\n     clearly  specified\t that  the  same
\n     were  to\tbe  co-accepted\t by  the
\n     foreign bank besides being accepted
\n     by the buying French Firm. In these
\n     circumstances it  was the\tduty  of
\n     the Opposite  Party Bank  to ensure
\n     co-acceptance by  the foreign Bank.
\n     The responsibility\t of the\t Bank to
\n     obtain co-acceptance  of the  Bills
\n     of Exchange  is also  manifest from
\n     the Rules\tof Collection  laid down
\n     by\t the  International  Chamber  of
\n     Commerce. As the collecting bank on
\n     behalf\tof\tits\tcustomer
\n     (Complainant) who had entrusted the
\n     task  of  collection  of  Bills  of
\n     Exchange to it the Opposite Party –
\n     Bank, the latter is responsible for
\n     seeing that  the form of acceptance
\n     of Bills  of Exchange  is\tcomplete
\n     and correct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The Rules  require  that  “all
\n     documents sent  for collection must
\n     be accompanied  by collection order
\n     which is  to be made by the Bank in
\n     accordance with the instructions of
\n     the client or the principal.
\n\t  The\tinstructions   for   co-
\n     acceptance by  the foreign\t bank on
\n     the Bills\tof Exchange  were  clear
\n     and unambiguous and as such even if
\n     we\t ignore\t  the  covering\t  letter
\n     No.2776 of\t 26th August,  1991 said
\n     to\t  have\t  been\t sent\tby   the
\n     Complainant  to  the  Bank\t on  the
\n     ground  that   this  is   a  forged
\n     document, it  will not  affect  the
\n     decision already  arrived at in any
\n     manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   As pointed\t out earlier,  the Commission did not decide
\nthe question  whether the  letter dated\t 26th August,  1991,
\nfiled by the respondent was a forged letter as it was of the
\nopinion that  even if  both the\t letters, namely, the letter
\nfiled by the appellant in Review Petition as also the letter
\nfiled by  the respondent  in the  original proceedings, were
\nignored, the  appellant was  still under a liability to have
\nmentioned in  its lener to the French Bank to whom the Bills
\nof Exchange were forwarded, that the French Bank had also to
\nco-accept the  Bills before  delivering the documents to the
\nBuyer as  the respondent  had  specifically  mentioned\tthis
\nrequirement in\tthe Bills of Exchange drawn on and addressed
\nto  M\/s\t STE  Kolori  and  their  Bankers,  namely,  Societe
\nLyonnaise De  Banque, Lyon,  France. This  finding, like the
\nfindings recorded by the Commission in its original judgment
\ndated 16.11.93,\t is based  on the  interpretation of certain
\nClauses\t of  the  Rules\t of  the  International\t Chamber  of
\nCommerce.\n<\/p>\n
10.  There are\ttwo Banks,  namely, the\t Indian Bank, Bombay
\n(appellant)  through   whom  the   Bills  of  Exchange\twere
\nforwarded and  the French Bank, namely, Societe Lyonnaise De
\nBanque, Foreign\t Department, Lyon, France for payment. It is
\nnot disputed  that the\tBanks had  to act in accordance with
\nthe Uniform  Rules for\tCollection made by the International
\nChamber of  Commerce (hereinafter referred to as ICC Rules).
\nThe extent  of liability,  default, negligence or deficiency
\nin service,  on the  part of  either  or  the  Banks  would,
\nTherefore, depend on a correct reading and interpretation of
\nthe ICC\t Rules which,  we unhesitantly\tsay, at\t the outset,
\nwere  misread,\t misunderstood\tand  misinterpreted  by\t the
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Clause B  of the  ICC Rules  which came into force with
\neffect from  January l,\t 1979 contains\tDefinitions some  of
\nwhich (which  are relevant  for this  case)  are  reproduced
\nbelow :-\n<\/p>\n
     “1. (i)   “Collection”  means   the
\n     handling by  banks’on  instructions
\n     received of documents as defined in\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) below,  in order  to a) obtain
\n     acceptance and\/or,\t as the case may
\n     be,   payment,    or   b)\t deliver
\n     commercial\t   documents\t against
\n     acceptance and\/or,\t as the case may
\n     be, against  payment, or c) deliver
\n     documents\ton   other   terms   and
\n     conditions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) \"Documents\"\t   means\n     financial\t   documents\t  and\/or\n     commercial documents:\n\t  (a)  \"financial     documents\"\n<\/pre>\n
     means bills of exchange, promissory
\n     notes, cheques, payment receipts or
\n     other similar  instruments used for
\n     obtaining the payment of money;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  “Commercial    documents’
\n     means invoices, shipping documents,
\n     documents of title or other similar
\n     documents, or  any other documents,
\n     whatsoever,  not\tbeing  financial
\n     documents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  The “parties thereto” are :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  the  “principal”  who\t is  the
\n     customer entrusting  the  operation
\n     of collection to his bank;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) the “remitting  bank” which is
\n     the bank to which the principal has
\n     entrusted\t  the\t operation    of
\n     collection;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)     the   “collecting   bank”
\n     which is  any bank,  other than the
\n     remitting\t bank,\t  involved    in
\n     processing the collection order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv)  the\t“presenting bank’  which
\n     is\t the   collecting  bank\t  making
\n     presentation to the drawee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  The “drawee”\tis  the\t one  to
\n     whom presentation\tis  to\tbe  made
\n     according to the collection order.”
\n     Clause C provides as under :-
\n     “All documents  sent for collection
\n     must be accompanied by a collection
\n     order giving  complete and\t precise
\n     instructions.   Banks    are   only
\n     permitted\t to    act   upon    the
\n     instructions    given    in    such
\n     collection order, and in accordance
\n     with these Rules.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\t  If any  bank cannot.\tfor  any\n     reason.\t comply\t    with     the\n     instructions    given     in    the\n<\/pre>\n
     collection order received by it, it
\n     must immediately  advise the  party
\n     from   whom    it\t received    the
\n     collection order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Article 2,\t 3 as  also  Article  15
\n     provide as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Article 2
\n\t  Banks\t must  verify  that  the
\n     documents received\t appear to be as
\n     listed in\tthe collection order and
\n     must immediately  advise the  party
\n     from whom\tthe collection order was
\n     received of any documents missing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Banks\t   have\t   no\t further\n     obligation\t   to\t  examine    the\n     documents.\n     Article 3\n\t  For  the   purpose  of  giving\n<\/pre>\n
     effect to\tthe Instructions  of the
\n     principal, the  remitting bank will
\n     utilise as the collecting bank:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  the collecting  bank nominated
\n     by\t    the\t principal,  or\t in  the
\n     absence of such nomination,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) any  bank,   of  its\t own  or
\n     another  bank’s   choice\tin   the
\n     country of\t payment or  acceptance,
\n     as the case may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The\t documents    and    the
\n     collection order may be sent to the
\n     collecting bank directly or through
\n     another bank as intermediary.
\n\t  Banks utilising  the\tservices
\n     of other  banks tor  the purpose of
\n     giving effect  to the  instructions
\n     of the  principal\tdo  so\tfor  the
\n     account of\t and at\t the risk of the
\n     latter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The principal\t shall be  bound
\n     by\t and  liable  to  indemnify  the
\n     banks against  all\t obligations and
\n     responsibilities imposed by foreign
\n     laws or usages.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     Article 15\n\t  The\tpresenting    bank    is\n<\/pre>\n
     responsible  for  seeing  that  the
\n     form of the acceptance of a bill of
\n     exchange appears to be complete and
\n     correct, but is not responsible for
\n     the genuineness of any signature or
\n     for the  authority of any signatory
\n     to sign the acceptance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.  Clauses 2\tand 3 specify the parties to the transaction
\nfor purpose of “Collection” as defined in Sub-clause 1(i) of
\nClause B. These parties are the “Principal” who entrusts the
\noperation of  “Collection” to his Bank. This, in the instant
\ncase, would  be the  respondent as  the respondent entrusted
\nthe operation  of “Collection”\tto the\tappellant. The other
\nparty is  the “Remitting  Bank”, namely,  a Bank to whom the
\noperation of  “Collection” is  entrusted by the “Principal”.
\nIn the\tinstant case,  the “Remitting  Bank”  would  be\t the
\nappellant as  it was  this Bank\t to whom  the respondent had
\nentrusted the  job of  “Collection”. Another  Bank which  is
\ninvolved in  the whole transaction is the “Collecting Bank”.
\nAccording to the definition, this would be a Bank other than
\nthe “Remitting\tBank”. There  is, yet, a third Bank, namely,
\nthe “Presenting\t Bank” which,  according to  the definition,
\nis, in\tfact, the  “Collecting Bank”  making presentation to
\nthe “Drawee”.  “Drawee” has  been defined in Sub-clause 3 of
\nClause\t8  as  the  person  to\twhom  presentation  is\tmade
\naccording  to\tthe  collection\t  order.  Although,  in\t the
\ndefinition, there  are three  banks, namely,  the “Remitting
\nBank”, the  “Collecting Bank” and the “Presenting Bank”, the
\nidentity of  “Collecting Bank”\tand the “Presenting Bank” is
\nthe same  as the  “Collecting Bank”  not only  collects\t the
\ndocuments from\tthe “Remitting Bank”, it also presents those
\ndocuments to  the “Drawee” for payment. The “Remitting Bank”
\ncannot be  the “Collecting Bank” or the “Presenting Bank” as
\nthe “Collecting Bank” has been defined in the ICC Rules as a
\nBank OTHER THAN THE REMITTING BANK”.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Clause  C\t which\thas  already  been  extracted  above
\nrequires that  the documents  sent for\t“Collection” must be
\naccompanied by\ta collection order. The collection order has
\nto contain complete and precise instructions so as to enable
\nthe  Bank   to\tact  in\t accordance  with  the\tinstructions
\ncontained in the collection order and in accordance with the
\nICC Rules.  This will  also be\tclear from the definition of
\n“Collection” as\t set out  in Sub-clause\t 1(i) of  Clause  B,
\nwhich  means   “the  handling\tby  Banks,  ON\tINSTRUCTIONS
\nRECEIVED, of  documents”, which\t are either  “Commercial  or
\nFinancial” as  defined in  Sub-clause (ii)(a)  and (b).\t The
\ndefinition of  “Financial Documents”  also includes Files of
\nExchange. The words “for the purpose of giving effect to the
\nINSTRUCTIONS OF\t THE PRINCIPAL”\t occurring in Article 3 also
\nmake it\t clear that  the Principal  has to give instructions
\nseparately (in\taddition to  the documents) to the Remitting
\nBank  to  .  enable  it\t to  instruct  the  Collecting\tBank
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
14.  “Acceptance”  is\tdealt  with   in  Article  15  which
\nindicates that the responsibility of seeing that the Bill of
\nExchange is  accepted, completely  and correctly, is that of
\nthe “Presenting Bank”.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The Commission, while disposing of the complaint of the
\nrespondent by  its original  order dated  16.11.93, had held
\nthat not  only the  Bill of  Exchange but  the covering note
\naccompanying those Bills clearly indicated that the Bill was
\nto be  accepted by  the Buyer and co-accepted by the Foreign
\nBank. It, then, proceeded to say as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The Rules for Collection laid down
\n     by\t the  International  Chamber  of
\n     Commerce leave  no room  for  doubt
\n     that as  per Article  3 of the said
\n     Rules, for\t giving\t effect\t to  the
\n     instructions  of\tthe   principal,
\n     i.e., the\tcustomer entrusting  the
\n     operation\tof   collection\t to  his
\n     Bank, the\tremitting bank (viz. the
\n     Bank to  which  the  principal  has
\n     entrusted\t  the\t operation    of
\n     collection) is the collecting Bank.
\n     As observed  earlier, under Article
\n     15 it  is the presenting Bank which
\n     is responsible  for seeing that the
\n     form of  acceptance of  a\tBill  of
\n     Exchange appears to be complete and
\n     correct.  Under   Item  C\t“General
\n     Provisions and  Divisions”\t of  the
\n     above Rules “All documents sent for
\n     collection must be accompanied by a
\n     collection order  which has  to  be
\n     made by the Bank in accordance with
\n     the instructions  of the  client or
\n     the principal”.  The opposite party
\n     Bank failed to do so. We reject its
\n     plea that it was not responsible to
\n     obtain  the  co-acceptance\t of  the
\n     Bank and there was no deficiency of
\n     service on its part.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.  A mere perusal of the above passage of the Commission’s
\njudgment indicates  that the  Commission fell into a serious
\nerror in  treating the\t“Remitting Bank”  as the “Collecting
\nBank” and,  then, fastening  liability on  the appellant  by
\nobserving that\tthe appellant  had not\tacted in  accordance
\nwith Article  15 of  the ICC  Rules under  which it  was the
\nresponsibility of  the “Presenting  Bank” to  see  that\t the
\n“Documents”   were   accepted\tin   accordance\t  with\t the
\ninstructions of the “Principal”. The Commission thus treated
\nappellant not  only as\tthe “Remitting Bank” but also as the
\n“Collecting  Bank”   and  ‘Presenting  Bank”  which  is\t not
\npermissible as the identity of “Remitting Bank” is different
\nand distinct  from that\t of the “Collecting Bank” and\/or the
\n“Presenting Bank”.\n<\/p>\n
17.  As pointed\t out  earlier,\tthe  main  judgment  of\t the
\nCommission is  based on\t the ground  that there\t was  letter
\ndated 26.8.91  which  contained\t specific  instruction\tthat
\nthere had to be co-acceptance by the Foreign Bank.\n<\/p>\n
18.  As against\t this. there  is, admittedly, another letter
\nof 26th\t August, 1991  from the\t respondent to the appellant
\nwhich does  not contain\t this instruction.  When this letter
\nwas filed before the Commission and a review of the judgment
\nwas sought  on the  ground that\t the letter  containing\t the
\ninstruction for\t obtaining co-acceptance  of the French Bank
\nwas never  issued to  the appellant and that the only letter
\nissued on that date was the letter in which this instruction
\nwas not\t mentioned, the\t Commission, instead of deciding the
\ncontroversy as\tto whether  the other  letter relied upon by
\nthe respondent was, at all, sent or issued to the appellant,
\nproceeded to  decide the controversy on the ground that even
\nif no  such letter  was issued,\t the recital  in the Bill of
\nExchange about\tco-acceptance by  the French Bank was enough
\nand the\t appellant having  not acted in terms of the Bill of
\nExchange and  having not  obtained the\tco-acceptance of the
\nFrench Bank,  was liable to pay to the respondent the entire
\nprice of  the goods  supplied  to  the\tBuyer  to  whom\t the
\ndocuments  would   not\thave  been  delivered  had  it\tbeen
\nmentioned that before delivering the documents to the Buyer,
\nco-acceptance by  the French  Bank was necessary, as in that
\nevent, the  documents\twould have  been either returned, as
\nwas done  on previous  occasions, or  the French  Bank would
\nhave given co-acceptance and thus made payment of the entire
\namount to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In view  of the  findings recorded by us that under the
\nICC Rules,  it is  the responsibility  of the “Principal” to
\ngive or\t send specific\tand precise instructions to the Bank
\nbesides\t sending   the\t “Commercial\/Financial\t Documents”,
\nCommission was\tunder a\t duty to  decide as  to whether\t the
\nappellant had  issued the  letter containing the requirement
\nof co-acceptance  by the  French Bank.\tThe Commission could
\nnot legally  avoid to  decide this  question particularly as
\nthe appellant  had contended  before the Commission that the
\nletter\tNo.2776\t  of  26th   August,  1991  was\t forged\t and
\nfabricated by the respondent and that the only letter issued
\nby the\trespondent was\tletter No.2775\tdated  26th  August,
\n1991. The  contents of\tboth the  letters have\talready been
\nreproduced by  the Commission  in its  judgment by which the
\nreview application has been disposed of which would indicate
\nthat in\t the letter  No.2775, there  is\t no  requirement  to
\nobtain co-acceptance by the French Bank whereas in the other
\nletter, namely,\t letter No.2776,  this\tcondition  has\tbeen
\nspecifically mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
20.  By filing\tletter No.2775\tof 26.8.91  along  with\t the
\nReview\tPetition  and  contending  that\t the  other  letter,
\nnamely, letter\tNo.2776 of  the even date, was never written
\nor issued  by the respondent, the appellant, in fact, raised
\nthe plea  before the  Commission  that\tits  judgment  dated
\n16.11.93, which\t was based  on letter No. 2776, was obtained
\nby the\trespondent by  practising  fraud  not  only  on\t the
\nappellant but  on the Commission too as letter No.2776 dated
\n26.8.91 was forged by the respondent for the purpose of this
\ncase. This  plea could\tnot have been legally ignored by the
\nCommission which  needs to be reminded that the Authorities,
\nbe they\t Constitutional, Statutory  or Administrative,\t(and
\nparticularly those  who have  to decide\t a lis)\t possess the
\npower to  recall their\tjudgments  or  orders  if  they\t are
\nobtained by  fraud as Fraud and Justice never dwell together
\n(Fraus et  jus nunquam\tcohabitant). It\t has been repeatedly
\nsaid that Fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et
\ndolus nemini patrocinari debent).\n<\/p>\n
21.  In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council (1956) AC
\n736, the  House of Lords held that the effect of fraud would
\nnormally be  to vitiate\t any act or order. order obtained by
\nfraud practised\t upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court
\nis misled  by a\t party or the Court itself commits a mistake
\nwhich prejudices  a party,  the Court has the inherent power
\nto recall  its order.  (See:  Benoy  Krishna  Mukherjee\t vs.
\nMohanlal Goenka\t AIR 1950  Cal. 287; Gajanand Sha & Ors. vs.
\nDayanand Thakur AIR 1943 Patna 127; Krishna Kumar vs. Jawand
\nSingh AIR  1947 Nagpur\t236; Devendra  Nath Sarkar  vs.\t Ram
\nRachpal Singh  ILR (1926) 1 Lucknow 341 = AIR 1926 Oudh 315;
\nSaiyed Muhammad\t Raza vs.  Ram Saroop  & Ors.  ILR (1929)  4
\nLucknow 562  = AIR  1929 Oudh  385 (FB); Bankey Behari Lal &
\nAnr. vs.  Abdul Rahman & Ors. ILR (1932) 7 Lucknow 350 = AIR
\n1932 Oudh  63; Lekshmi\tAmma Chacki  Amma vs. Mammen Mammen,
\n1955 Kerala  Law Times 459.) The Court has also the inherent
\npower to  set aside  a sale brought about by fraud practised
\nupon the  Court (Ishwar\t Mahton &  Anr. vs.  Sitaram Kumar &
\nOrs. AIR 1954 Patna 450) or to set aside the order recording
\ncompromise obtained by fraud. (Bindeshwari  Pd.Chaudhary vs.
\nDebendra Pd.  Singh & Ors. AIR 1958 Patna 618; Smt. Tara Bai
\nvs. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao AIR 1985 Karnataka 270).\n<\/p>\n
24.  We may  now turn to the next and allied questions; what
\nis forgery,  whether forgery  is a  fraud and whether in the
\ninstant case, forgery and fraud are proved?\n<\/p>\n
25.  Forgery has  its origin  in the  French word  “Forger”,
\nwhich signifies:\n<\/p>\n
     “to frame or fashion a thing as the
\n     smith  doth   his\tworke  upon  the
\n     anvill. And  it is\t used in our law
\n     for  the\tfraudulant  making   and
\n     publishing of  false   writings  to
\n     the prejudice of another mans right
\n     (Termes  de   la\tLey)   (Stroud’s
\n     judicial Dictionary,  Fifth Edition
\n     Vol. 2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
26.  In\t Webst\t Comprehensive.\t Dicitionary,  International
\nEdition, “Forgery’ is defined as :\n<\/p>\n
     “The  act\t of  falsely  making  or
\n     materially\t  altering. with  intent
\n     to defraud;  any  writing which, if
\n     genuine, might be of legal efficacy
\n     or\t the   foundation  of\ta  legal
\n     liability.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
27.  This Definition was adopted in Rembert vs. State 25 Am.
\nRep. 639.  In another  case, namely, State vs. Phelps 34 Am.
\nDec. 672,  it was laid down that forgery is the false making
\nof any\twritten instrument,  for the  purpose  of  fraud  or
\ndeceit. This  decision appears to be based on the meaning of
\nforgery as set out in Tomlin’s Law Dictionary.\n<\/p>\n
28.  From the  above, it  would be  seen that\tfraud  is an
\nessential ingredient of forgery.\n<\/p>\n
29.  Forgery under  the Indian\t Penal\tCode is\t an  offence
\nwhich has  been defined\t in   Section 463, while Section 464
\ndeals with  the making\tof a   false  document. Section\t 465
\ndeals with   the  making of  a\tfalse document. Section\t 465
\nprescribes punishment  for  forgery.  “Forged  document”  is
\ndefined in   Section  470 while\t Section 471 deals  with the
\ncrime of using as genuine, the\tforged document.\n<\/p>\n
30.  Forgery and  Fraud are essentially\t matters of evidence
\nwhich could  be proved\tas a  fact by  direct evidence or by
\ninferences drawn from proved facts.\n<\/p>\n
31.  The Privy\tCouncil in  Satish  Chandra  Chatterjee\t vs.
\nKumar Satish  Kantha Roy & Ors. Air 1923 PC 73, laid down as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “Charges  of  fraud  and  collusion
\n     like those\t contained in the plaint
\n     in this  case must,  no  doubt,  be
\n     proved by\tthose  who  made  them–
\n     proved  by\t  established  facts   r
\n     inferences legitimately  drawn from
\n     those facts  taken\t together  as  a
\n     whole. Suspicions\tand surmises and
\n     conjecture\t are   not   permissible
\n     substitutes  for\tthose  facts  or
\n     those inferences,\tbut that  by  no
\n     means requires  that every puzzling
\n     artifice or contrivance resorted to
\n     by\t one   accused\tor   fraud  must
\n     necessarily      be      completely
\n     unravelled and  cleared up and made
\n     plain  before   a\tverdict\t can  be
\n     properly found against him. If this
\n     were  not\tso  many  a  clever  and
\n     dexterous knave would escape.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
32.  The above principle will apply not only to court of law
\nbut also  to statutory tribunals which, like the Commission,
\nare conferred  power to\t record evidence by applying certain
\nprovisions of  the Code\t of Civil  Procedure  including\t the
\npower to  enforce attendance  of the  witnesses and are also
\ngiven the  power to  receive  evidence\ton  affidavits.\t The
\nCommission under  the Consumer\tProtection Act, 1986 decides
\nthe dispute  by following the procedure indicated in Section
\n22 read with Section 13(iv) and (v) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
33.  Sub-section (iv)  of Section  13 which  has  been\tmade
\napplicable to  the proceeding before the Commission lay down
\nto the\tproceeding before  the Commission  lay down  that it
\nshall have  the same  powers as\t are vested in a Civil Court
\nunder the  Code Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in
\nrespect of the following matters, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  the  summoning  and  enforcing
\n     the attendance  of any defendant or
\n     witness and  examining the\t witness
\n     on oath;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) the  discovery and  production
\n     of any  document and  production of
\n     any  document   of\t other\tmaterial
\n     object producible as evidence:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) the\treception of evidence on
\n     affidavits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) ——————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ——\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v) issuing  of any  commission for
\n     the examination of any witness; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vi) ——————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     —<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The commission  has, thus,\t jurisdiction  not  only  to
\nexamine a  witness on  oath but\t also to receive evidence in
\nthe form of affidavits.\n<\/p>\n
34.  The parties,  in the  instant case,  have\tfiled  their
\naffidavits annexing  therewith a  host of  documents.  These
\naffidavits and\tdocuments were\ttreated as  evidence in\t the
\ncase. It  was on  the basis  of this  evidence that the main
\ncase, as  also the  Review Petition,  were  decided  by\t the
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
35.  Since the\tevidence of the parties is already on record
\nand all\t vital facts  either stand  admitted or\t proved,  we
\nproceed now  to\t consider  whether  forgery  and  fraud\t are
\nestablished. This  we are  doing in  view of  the facts\t and
\ncircumstances of  this case  otherwise we  would have either
\nremanded  the\tcase  to  the  Commission  or  directed\t the
\nrespondent toe approach the Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
36.  Paragraphs 2,  3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Review Application
\nfiled by the appellant before the Commission are as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “2.  In  brief,  the  case\t of  the
\n     complainant  before   this\t Hon’ble
\n     Commission was  that it  had by its
\n     letter of\tthe 26th  August,  1991,
\n     which letter  enclosed the bills of
\n     exchange in question, gave specific
\n     instruction to the Opposite Party –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     — the  Bank —  for securing a co-
\n     acceptance by  Societe Lyonnaise de
\n     Banque  (the  French  Bank)  before
\n     handing over the documents of title
\n     to\t the   goods.  Based  upon  this
\n     letter, the  veracity of  which was
\n     not questioned y the Opposite Party
\n     at that  stage in the circumstances
\n     indicated hereinafter, this Hon’ble
\n     Commission was pleased to hold that
\n     the Opposite  Party was responsible
\n     for   not\t  carrying    out    the
\n     instructions   contained\tin   the
\n     letter  dated  26th  August,  1991,
\n     (Exhibit A\t to the\t Complaint)  and
\n     thereby liable in damages caused to
\n     the Complainant. It is correct that
\n     the  complainant had annexed a copy
\n     of the  letter dated  26th\t August,
\n     1991   with    this    Complainant.
\n     However, the  Opposite  Party-  the
\n     bank failed  to  notice  that  this
\n     letter so\tannexed was not the same
\n     as the  letter on\t26.8.1991  as  a
\n     covering,\thowever\t  with\ta  vital
\n     difference that  the  body\t of  the
\n     letter did not contain the material
\n     instruction regarding co-acceptance
\n     by the French Bank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  The  letter\tproduced  before
\n     this Hon’ble  commission bears  the
\n     same date\tas the\tletter\tactually
\n     given to  the Bank purports to be a
\n     covering latter  (as also\twas  the
\n     letter given to the Bank) and bears
\n     a reference  No. 2776  the Bank  is
\n     2775.   Due   to\tthese\tapparent
\n     similarities, whilst drawing up the
\n     pleadings\t  of\t the\tmaterial
\n     alterations made to the contents of
\n     the letter\t were over  looked.  The
\n     Opposite  Party   states  that  the
\n     letter  as\t  produced  before  this
\n     Hon’ble Commission\t was not  a true
\n     copy of  the letter  given\t to  the
\n     Bank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  One of  the reasons  why  this
\n     lapse occurred  is because the true
\n     significance  and\t import\t of  the
\n     letter  was   not\tunderstood   and
\n     appreciated. After receiving a copy
\n     of\t the   order  of   this\t Hon’ble
\n     Commission, it  was found\tthat the
\n     whole case\t had turned  against the
\n     bank based\t upon the  letter of the
\n     Complainant  produced   before  the
\n     Commission. It  is thereafter  when
\n     the copy  of the  letter  which  is
\n     with the  Bank was\t perused, it was
\n     found  that  there\t is  a\tmaterial
\n     variation between\tthat copy  which
\n     was  given\t to  the  Bank\tand  its
\n     purported\ttrue   copy  which   was
\n     produced by  the Complainant before
\n     this Hon’ble  Commission.\tHowever,
\n     to eliminate  the possibility as to
\n     whether, in  addition to the letter
\n     given to the Bank bearing reference
\n     No.  2775,\t another  letter  having
\n     reference No.  2776 of a same dated
\n     was  also\tgiven  to  the\tBank,  a
\n     through  search  was  made\t of  the
\n     records of\t the Bank  at the Napean
\n     Sea  Road\t and   other   connected
\n     Branches including the head office.
\n     The search\t has revealed  that  the
\n     Bank has  not received  the  letter
\n     bearing reference\tNo. 2776 of 26th
\n     August, 1991  the contents of which
\n     are as  the purported copy produced
\n     by\t the   Complainant  before  this
\n     Hon’ble Commission.  What was given
\n     by the  complaint to  the Bank as a
\n     covering letter  was a letter being
\n     reference No. 2775, a copy of which
\n     is annexed\t hereto\t and  marked  as
\n     Annexure  I  and  the  original  of
\n     which shall be produced at the time
\n     of hearing.  Affidavit of\tthe then
\n     manager   of    the   said\t  branch
\n     confirming\t that  the  said  letter
\n     dated 26th\t August, 1991 annexed as
\n     Exhibit “A”  to the  Complaint  was
\n     not received by the Bank is annexed
\n     hereto and market Annexure “II”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  A perusal of this letter shows
\n     that the  material instructions  in
\n     relation to  co-acceptance\t by  the
\n     French  Bank  are\tabsent\tin  this
\n     letter.  The   Opposite  Party   is
\n     advised to\t stated that considering
\n     the fact  that a  letter dated 26th
\n     August, 1991, bearing REF:SF:E:2775
\n     was given\tas a  covering letter to
\n     the Bank,\tit is inconceivable that
\n     a second  letter also as a covering
\n     letter would  be given to the Bank.
\n     The letter\t of  26th  August,  1991
\n     stated that  it  is  “….enclosing
\n     fresh set of drafts….”. There are
\n     some  other  discrepancies\t between
\n     this letter and the letter produced
\n     by the  Complainant,  as  hereafter
\n     set out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  The  Opposite\t  Party\t further
\n     submit that  the xerox  copy of the
\n     purported\tletter\tproduced  before
\n     this  Hon’ble   Commission\t by  the
\n     Complainant purports  to  bear  and
\n     initial on\t the right-hand\t side of
\n     the  letter.   The\t Opposite  Party
\n     submits that this initial is not of
\n     any of  the officials of the Napean
\n     Sea Road  Branch of the bank at the
\n     relevant time.  The Opposite  Party
\n     is, therefore,  advised  to  submit
\n     that  this\t  letter  is  a\t forgery
\n     created by\t the Complainant for the
\n     purpose of the present case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     37. The respondent filed a reply to
\n     the Review Application in paragraph
\n     4 by which he stated as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) The  Complainant by  its letter
\n     dated  26th   August  1991\t bearing
\n     reference No.SF:  E: 2775 forwarded
\n     to the Opponent fresh set of Drafts
\n     with a  request to\t present the aid
\n     documents to  the huyer  (vis.  M\/s
\n     STE Kolori)  through  M\/s.\t Societe
\n     Lyonnaise De  Banque, lyon, France.
\n     The copy  of the  said letter which
\n     is on  the file  of the said letter
\n     which  is\t on  the   file\t of  the
\n     Complainant is  annexed hereto  tan
\n     market Exhibit ‘A’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  The  said  letter  dated  26th
\n     August 1991  bearing Reference  No.
\n     EF:E: 2775\t though delivered to the
\n     Opponent, the  carbon copy\t of  the
\n     said  letter   available  with  the
\n     Complainant,  does\t  not  bear  any
\n     acknowledgement  of   receipt.  The
\n     said letter  is also  mentioned  in
\n     the Outward  Register maintained by
\n     the Complainant. Hereto annexed and
\n     market Exhibit ‘B’ is a copy of the
\n     relevant  page   of   the\t Outward
\n     Register of  the  Complainant.  The
\n     Complainant craves\t leave to  refer
\n     to\t and   rely  upon   the\t Outward
\n     Register maintained  by it\t for the
\n     relevant period when produced.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) After\tthe delivery of the said
\n     letter  dated   26th  August   1991
\n     bearing Reference\tNo.  SF:E:  2775
\n     the Complainant  noticed  that  the
\n     said letter  did  not  request  the
\n     Opponent to  have the said Bills of
\n     Exchange co-accepted by the Foreign
\n     Bank  viz.\t  Societe  Lyonnaise  De
\n     Banque,  Lyon,   France.\tIn   the
\n     circumstances,   the    Complainant
\n     immediately    addressed\t another
\n     letter to\tthe Opponent  also dated
\n     26th August  1991 bearing Reference
\n     No.SF:E:  2775  wherein  they  gave
\n     specific\tinstructions\tto   the
\n     Opponent to  have to the said Bills
\n     of Exchange  accepted by  the buyer
\n     viz . M\/s STE Klori and co-accepted
\n     by the  Foreign Bank  viz.\t Societe
\n     Lyonnaise\tDe   Banque.  The   said
\n     letter has\t been annexed as Exhibit
\n     ‘A’ to the plaint and has also been
\n     annexed hereto  as Exhibit ‘C’. The
\n     said letter  was delivered\t to  the
\n     Opponent and  the\tsame  bears  the
\n     initials\tof   the   persons   who
\n     received the  said\t letter\t in  the
\n     Opponent and  the\tsame  bears  the
\n     intials of\t the person who received
\n     the  initials  of\tthe  person  who
\n     received the said letter also bears
\n     the rubber stamp of the Opponent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  The  said  letter  dated  26th
\n     August 1991  bearing Reference  No.
\n     SF:E: 2775 is also mentioned in the
\n     Outward Register  maintained by the
\n     Complainant.  Exhibit   ‘B’  hereto
\n     which is  the relevant  page of the
\n     Outward Register not only shows the
\n     entry of  the said\t letter\t bearing
\n     Reference No.  SF:F: 2775\tbut also
\n     the entry\tof the\taforesaid letter
\n     bearing SF:E: 2776.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  From\t the  aforesaid\t  it  is
\n     evident that  there were to letters
\n     both dated\t 26th August, 1991 which
\n     were addressed  by the  Complainant
\n     to the Opponent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)  The\tComplainant  says   that
\n     pursuant  to   the\t filing\t of  the
\n     original\t    complaint,\t     the
\n     Complainant’s    Advocates\t    gave
\n     inspection\t  of\tthe   documents,
\n     referred to  and relied upon by the
\n     Complainant,   to\t the   Opponents
\n     Advocate. The  said inspection  was
\n     taken on  14th October, 1992 and at
\n     the said  time the\t carbon copy  of
\n     the letter\t dated 26th August, 1991
\n     bearing Reference No.SF:E: 2776 was
\n     inspected by  the\tOpponents  Bank.
\n     The fact  of the  inspection having
\n     been taken has been recorded by the
\n     Opponents Advocated in their letter
\n     by the  dated  16th  October,  1992
\n     which is  annexed hereto and marked
\n     Exhibit ‘D’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)  The  Complainant  states  that
\n     after the\tsaid Review  Application
\n     was served\t upon  the  Complainant,
\n     the Complainants Advocate addressed
\n     a letter  dated 28th December, 1993
\n     to the Opponents Advocates pointing
\n     out   that\t   the\t  said\t  Review
\n     Application was  totally false  and
\n     misconceived inasmuch  as the  said
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing Reference No.SF:E: 2776 was
\n     not a  fabricated letter  and  bore
\n     the rubber stamp of the Opponent as
\n     also the initials of the person who
\n     received the  same in  the Opponent
\n     Bank. The Complainants Advocates by
\n     the said  letter also requested for
\n     inspection of the letter dated 26th
\n     August, 1991  bearing Reference No.
\n     SF:E:2775 and  the Inward\tRegister
\n     maintained by  the\t Opponent  Bank.
\n     Hereto annexed  and marked\t Exhibit
\n     ‘E’  is   a  copy\t of   the   said
\n     Complainant’s   Advocates\t  letter
\n     dated 28th December, 1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h)   The\t  opponent   by\t   their\n     Advocates'\t  letter    dated   20th\n<\/pre>\n
     December, 1993  appointed time  for
\n     inspection of  the said letter. The
\n     Opponent  Advocates   by  the  said
\n     letter  also   stated  that   their
\n     client had\t not  entered  the  said
\n     letter\t bearing       Reference
\n     No.SF:E:2775   in\t  their\t  Inward
\n     Register as  as the Inward Register
\n     was  formerly  only  maintained  in
\n     respect of registered letters which
\n     were   entered    therein.\t  Hereto
\n     annexed and market Exhibit ‘F’ is a
\n     copy  of\tthe  said   dated   29th
\n     December, 1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  Pursuant  to\tthe  appointment
\n     fixed   in\t   that\t   regard    the
\n     Complainant  and\ttheir  Advocates
\n     attended\tthe    Office\tof   the
\n     Opponents Advocates on 3rd January,
\n     1994 and  took  inspection\t of  the
\n     said letter  dated SF:E;  2775. The
\n     Complainant at  the said  time also
\n     gave  inspection\tof  the\t  carbon
\n     copies  of\t  the\tletter\t bearing
\n     Reference\t No.\tSF:E:2775    and
\n     SF:E:2776 available  on the file of
\n     the Complainant.  Inspection of the
\n     Outward Register of the Complainant
\n     was also  given to the Opponent and
\n     its Advocates. The given and taking
\n     of the said inspection was recorded
\n     by the  Opponent Advocates in their
\n     letter  dated   4th  January,  1994
\n     (Exh. ‘D’\thereto) and  also by the
\n     Complainant  in   their   Advocates
\n     letter  also   dated  4th\tJanuary,
\n     1994.  Hereto  annexed  and  marked
\n     Exhibit  ‘G’   is\ta  copy\t of  the
\n     aforesaid letter dated 4th January,
\n     1994.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
38.  Other relevant  paras of  the  respondent’s  reply\t are
\nparagraph 7 to 15.\n<\/p>\n
39.  The Respondent’s  denial that  it\thad  fabricated\t the
\nletter No.  2776 is also contained in various other paras of
\nits reply.\n<\/p>\n
40.  The  appellant   filed  a\trejoinder  affidavit  before
\nCommission. Paras 3,7,12,21 are quoted below-\n<\/p>\n
     “3.  It  is   only\t  after\t  having
\n     perused   the    Reply    of    the
\n     Complainant that the Opposite Party
\n     has  further   realised  that   the
\n     Complainant has played a calculated
\n     fraud with\t an intention  to secure
\n     an\t  order\t   from\t  this\t Hon’ble
\n     Commission. the Complainant has all
\n     along  played   a\tfraud\ton  this
\n     Hon’ble  Commission  in  making  it
\n     believe that  the Bills of Exchange
\n     have been\tforwarded by the alleged
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing No. 2776 annexed as Exhibit
\n     “A” to  the Complaint.  Having  now
\n     read the  tenor  of  the  Reply  of
\n     Complainant, the Opposite party has
\n     realised that  the Complainant  has
\n     with   mischievous\t  and\tmalafide
\n     intent in its pleadings before this
\n     Hon’ble Commission cleverly avoided
\n     making reference  to the  different
\n     letters said to have been delivered
\n     to\t the   Opposite\t Party\tand  the
\n     aforesaid fact is clear and evident
\n     by the  language of  he  pleadings.
\n     The Opposite  Party further submits
\n     that after\t going through\tthe said
\n     reply  of\t the  complaint\t to  the
\n     Review Petition  it has become very
\n     clear  that   the\tComplainant  has
\n     deliberately played a fraud and now
\n     put forward  a false  case\t in  the
\n     said reply\t to  further  perpetrate
\n     the said  fraud. The Opposite Party
\n     submits the    letter  bearing  No.
\n     2775 dated\t 26th August,  1991  and
\n     the said  letter bearing  No.  2776
\n     dated  26th   August,  1991,   both
\n     purport to\t enclose   therewith set
\n     of Bills  of  Exchange.  It  is  an
\n     admitted position that only one set
\n     of Bills  were  forwarded\tfor  the
\n     purpose of\t forwarding the\t same to
\n     the   foreign    party   for    its
\n     acceptance.  The\tfact  that  both
\n     letters  set   out\t that  Bills  of
\n     Exchanges are  forwarded  therewith
\n     itself indicates that they were not
\n     meant for\tsubstitution.  Even  the
\n     language of both letters belies the
\n     false case\t of substitution now put
\n     up by  the complainant.  It is thus
\n     clear  that   the\tComplainant  has
\n     misguided this  Hon’ble  Commission
\n     by relying\t upon a\t letter\t bearing
\n     ref. No.  2776 dated  26th\t August,
\n     1991 purporting  to suggest that by
\n     the said  letter, the said Bills of
\n     Exchange  were  forwarded\tfor  the
\n     purpose of\t acceptance, whereas  in
\n     fact the  said letter  bearing  No.
\n     2776 dated\t 26th August,  1991  was
\n     never  received   by  the\tOpposite
\n     party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t  With\treference  to  paragraph
\n     4(c)  of\tthe  said   Reply,   the
\n     Opposite Party  denies  that  after
\n     delivery of  the said  letter dated
\n     26th August  delivery of  the  said
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing No.  2775\tthe  Complainant
\n     noticed that  the said  letter  did
\n     not  contain  a  request  to    the
\n     Opposite party  to\t have  the  said
\n     Bills of  Exchange\t co-accepted  by
\n     the  foreign   Bank  and  therefore
\n     addressed\tanother\t letter\t to  the
\n     Opposite  Party   also  dated  26th
\n     August,  1991   bearing  NO.   2776
\n     wherein   the    complainant   give
\n     specific\tinstructions\tto   the
\n     Opposite party  to\t have  the  said
\n     Bills of  Exchange accepted  by the
\n     Buyer  and\t  co-accepted\tby   the
\n     foreign Bank.  The\t Opposite  Party
\n     says and  submits that  the alleged
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing No.  2776\tis  not\t genuine
\n     letter. The  Opposite Party  craves
\n     leave  to\t refer\tto  the\t Outward
\n     Register  allegedly  maintained  by
\n     the complainant, when produced. The
\n     Opposite  party  submits  that  the
\n     Outward Register  maintained by the
\n     Complainant does  not appear  to be
\n     genuine  Outward  Register\t as  the
\n     same   has\t   entries    containing
\n     references to  letters of\ta  later
\n     date bearing   outward number of an
\n     earlier date.  The\t Opposite  Party
\n     says and  commits that  no reliance
\n     can be placed upon the said alleged
\n     Outward Register  alleged\tto  have
\n     been maintained by the Complainant.
\n     The opposite party says and submits
\n     that the  alleged initials\t of  the
\n     person who\t received he said letter
\n     is\t  not\tinitial\t  led\tby   any
\n     officer\/staff member of Indian Bank
\n     working in\t its  Nepean  Seas  Road
\n     Branch at\tthe relevant  time.  The
\n     Opposite Party  says that\tprior to
\n     the   filling    of   the\t  Review
\n     Application  the\tOpposite   Party
\n     obtained  verification   from   the
\n     officers and staff members attached
\n     to the  Nepean Sea\t Road Branch  of
\n     the Opposite  Party  who  certified
\n     and stated that the alleged initial
\n     on the  alleged office  copy of the
\n     Complainant is  not their\tinitial.
\n     The  Opposite   Party  states   and
\n     submits that  the mere  fact that a
\n     rubber stamp appears on the alleged
\n     letter cannot  be itself confer any
\n     authenticity. It  is  pertinent  to
\n     note  that\t  the  Complainant   has
\n     obtained and alleged acknowledgment
\n     on the  officer copy of the alleged
\n     letter  26th   Aug.  1991\t bearing
\n     reference No. 2776 when, in fact no
\n     such letter  was delivered\t by  the
\n     Complainant to  the Opposite Party.
\n     It is  further  pertinent\tto  note
\n     that the  Complainant did not think
\n     it fit  or necessary  to obtain any
\n     acknowledgement on\t office copy  of
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing No.  2775 when the original
\n     documents\t i.e.\tthe   Bills   of
\n     Exchange  were   delivered\t to  the
\n     Opposite Party  therewith\tbut  the
\n     complainant has  allegedly obtained
\n     and acknowledgement  on the alleged
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing No. 2776. Copy of Statement
\n     signed by\tthe Officers  and  staff
\n     members  at  the  Nepean  Sea  Road
\n     Branch  of\t  the\tOpposite   Party
\n     certifying\t  that\t  the\t alleged
\n     initials\ton    the   on\t alleged
\n     acknowledgement does  not belong to
\n     any of  them in  hereto annexed and
\n     marked Annex “I”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12.  With reference  to paragraph 7
\n     of the  said  Reply,  the\tOpposite
\n     Party denies  the contention of the
\n     Complainant that  the letter  dated
\n     26th August,  1991 bearing No. 2775
\n     was   not\t  disclosed    by    the
\n     Complainant  before   this\t Hon’ble
\n     Commission as  the said  letter was
\n     substituted by  the alleged  or  at
\n     all.  The\tOpposite  Party\t submits
\n     that it  is for the first time that
\n     the   Complainant\t  has\t pleaded
\n     substitution.    This    plea    of
\n     substitution has  been pleaded only
\n     after the\tfraud has  been detected
\n     by the  Opposite Party  and brought
\n     to\t the   notice  of  this\t Hon’ble
\n     Commission.   If\t the   plea   of
\n     substitution is to be believed, the
\n     Complainant  would\t have  withdrawn
\n     the letter\t dated 26th August, 1991
\n     bearing No.  2775 at  that point of
\n     time itself  since the  Complainant
\n     had taken\tno  acknowledgement  for
\n     the same. The Opposite Party denies
\n     the contention  of the  Complainant
\n     that the nondisclosure was not with
\n     a view  to suppressing information,
\n     as\t alleged   or\totherwise.   The
\n     Opposite Party  further denies  the
\n     contention of  the Complainant that
\n     the nondisclosure\twas  inadvertent
\n     as alleged\t at  all.  The\tOpposite
\n     Party states that the second letter
\n     dated 26th August, 1991 bearing No.
\n     2776 was  never  delivered\t by  the
\n     Complainant to the Opposite Party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15.  With reference to paragraph 10
\n     of the  said  Reply,  the\topposite
\n     party states  that it  is pertinent
\n     to note  that  despite  Complainant
\n     having  accepted\tthe  fact   that
\n     letter  dated   26th  August,  1991
\n     bearing No.  2775 was  addressed to
\n     the Opposite Party and the Opposite
\n     Party would act on the instructions
\n     contained therein.\t The Complainant
\n     ought to have drawn refernce to the
\n     letter No.\t 2775, if  assuming with
\n     out  admitting   that  the\t alleged
\n     letter  No.   2776\t was   in   fact
\n     delivered.\t  The\tOpposite   Party
\n     states that,  it is admitted by the
\n     Complainant that  the  two\t letters
\n     both  dated   26th\t  August,   1991
\n     bearing  Nos.  2775  and  2776  are
\n     materially\t different   from   each
\n     other. The\t Opposite  Party  states
\n     that  the\t Complainant   has   not
\n     explained in any part of the replay
\n     as to what warranted the submission
\n     of the  alleged letter  dated  26th
\n     August, 1991  bearing No.\t2776  on
\n     the same  dated after submission of
\n     a letter  on the same subject, also
\n     dated 26th August, 1991 bearing No.
\n     2775  without   providing\tfor  any
\n     reference to  the earlier letter or
\n     without making  any  mention  about
\n     the  submission   of  the\t earlier
\n     letter to\tthe Opposite  Party. The
\n     Opposite  Party  submits  that  the
\n     absence of\t continuity of reference
\n     to the  earlier  letter  cannot  be
\n     termed as\tan omission, as alleged,
\n     by\t the  Complainant,  particularly
\n     who, according  to the  Complainant
\n     itself   the   second   letter   is
\n     intended to  be substitution of the
\n     contents of the earlier letter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21.  With reference to paragraph 21
\n     to 24  of the  said  Reply,  it  is
\n     pertinent\t to    note   that   the
\n     Complainant    says     tat     the
\n     Complainant was willing to have the
\n     goods delivered  to the  Buyer  not
\n     only letter acceptance of the Bills
\n     of Exchange  by the  Buyer but also
\n     co-acceptance by  the foreign bank.
\n     The Complainant  has, till\t date no
\n     brought  to   the\tnotice\t of  the
\n     Opposite Party  and\/or this Hon’ble
\n     Commission\t  the\tbasis\tof   the
\n     aforesaid statement,  as to whether
\n     there is  any agreement between the
\n     complainant and  the foreign Buyer,
\n     or the  Complainant and the foreign
\n     bank for co-acceptance. There is no
\n     documentary or any evidence brought
\n     in by  the Complainant  to show any
\n     alleged contract for co-acceptance.
\n     In the  absence of the foreign bank
\n     being   party    to   the\t present
\n     proceedings, the  statement of  the
\n     Complainant  that\tthe  Complainant
\n     was willing  to sell the goods only
\n     if there  was co-acceptance, is not
\n     sustainable and cannot be believed.
\n     The Opposite Party says and submits
\n     that the  history\tof  the\t present
\n     transaction between the complainant
\n     and  the  foreign\tbuyer  indicates
\n     that the goods were already shipped
\n     in\t June,\t 1990\tprior\tto   the
\n     forwarding of the said Bills of the
\n     Exchange for  acceptance in August,
\n     1991.  The\t Opposite  Party  denies
\n     that the  Opposite Party  has  been
\n     negligent\tin  that  the  Bills  of
\n     Exchange are  to be accepted as per
\n     tenor  of\t the   instrument.   The
\n     Opposite  Party   denies  that  the
\n     Complainant in  entitled to sue the
\n     Opposite Party and recover from the
\n     Opposite Party  the amount of Bills
\n     of\t Exchange   with  interest,   as
\n     alleged or\t otherwise. The Opposite
\n     Party  says  that\tthe  only  claim
\n     which  the\t  Complainant\thas   is
\n     against the  foreign Buyer and \/ or
\n     foreign bank  and not  against  the
\n     Opposite  Party.\tIt  is\t foreign
\n     pertinent\t to    note   that   the
\n     Complainant states that there in no
\n     privity  of  contract  between  the
\n     foreign bank  and the  Complainant.
\n     If the aforesaid statement is to be
\n     believed, then  the question of the
\n     foreign bank  being required to co-
\n     accept the Bills of Exchange cannot
\n     and does arise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
41.  We\t have\talso  gone   through  other  affidavits\t and
\ndocuments,  filed   either  in\tthis  Court  or\t before\t the
\nCommission, which have been brought on record here.\n<\/p>\n
42.  We must  say immediately  that the circumstance, in the
\ninstant\t case,\t are  glaring  and  the\t intrinsic  evidence
\navailable on  the record  is clinching,\t so much so, that no
\nother inference\t is possible  except to hold that the letter
\nNo. 2776  of 26th  August, 1991 was forged by the respondent
\nin order  to obtain  a decree from the Commission for a huge
\namount of French Francs 4,10,000\/- It will appear that –\n<\/p>\n
     (i) The  respondent does  not  deny
\n     that it  had sent and issued letter
\n     No. 2775 dated 26th August, 1991 to
\n     appellant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) The  respondent does\tnot deny
\n     that this\tletter does  not contain
\n     any direction  to the  appellant to
\n     obtain   co-acceptance   from   the
\n     French Bank:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) The\trespondent says\t that it
\n     had issued\t letter NO.  2776  dated
\n     26th August,  1991 in  substitution
\n     of the  earlier  no.  2775\t of  the
\n     event dated;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) the  fact that this letter was
\n     sent in  substitution of letter No.
\n     2775 dated 26th August, 1991 is not
\n     mentioned in the letter itself:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v) The respondent does to say that
\n     the  letter  NO.  2775  dated  26th
\n     August, 1991  should be  treated as
\n     cancelled;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vi)     The     respondent     had
\n     corresponded with the appellant and
\n     had  even\t given\ta  notice  dated
\n     26.3.92 through  its counsel to the
\n     appellant claiming\t the amounts due
\n     under the\tBill of\t Exchange on the
\n     ground of\tnegligence  but\t nowhere
\n     does the  respondent says\tthat the
\n     letter No.\t 2776 dated 26th August,
\n     1991 was substitution of letter No.
\n     2775 of that date:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vii) Even\t the original  complaint
\n     filed before  the Commission  , the
\n     respondent does  not  say\tanywhere
\n     that they\thad  issued  letter  No.
\n     2776  of\t26th  August,\t1991  in
\n     substitution of the letter NO. 2775
\n     of that date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (viii) The\t plea  that  letter  NO.
\n     2776 was  issued in substitution of
\n     letter no.\t 2775 was  asserted   by
\n     respondent for  the first\ttime  in
\n     review   proceedings    when    the
\n     appellant filed  this letter before
\n     the  commission.  The  respondent’s
\n     silence still the stage, therefore,
\n     becomes  eloquent\tindicating  that
\n     this letter  was  no  in  existence
\n     till then:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ix) What\twas the\t mode of payment
\n     agreed upon  between the respondent
\n     and the  buyer in\tFrance\thas  not
\n     been  indicated.\tNor\thas  any
\n     correspondence, or for that matter,
\n     any agreement  in\twriting\t between
\n     the respondent  and the buyer, been
\n     filed  or\t brought  on  record  to
\n     indicate the  terms of  contract or
\n     agreement\t or,\tat   least,   to
\n     indicated the  mode of payment, was
\n     specifically mentioned by it in its
\n     “Collection    Order”     to    the
\n     appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (x) The respondent and already come
\n     to the  know  that\t the  buyer  was
\n     under liquidation as the liquidator
\n     himself   had    written\tto   the
\n     respondent to  file  its  claim  in
\n     respect of the goods supplied by it
\n     to the Buyer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (xi) There\t was some correspondence
\n     with French  Bank\tand  the  French
\n     Bank wrote\t to the appellant, which
\n     was also  brought\tto the notice of
\n     the respondent,  that co-acceptance
\n     by a  French Bank was not permitted
\n     under  French   Law  and  that,  if
\n     insistence for co-acceptance by the
\n     French  Bank  meant  furnishing  of
\n     bank  guarantee,  the  French  Bank
\n     would have\t refused to furnish that
\n     guarantee even  if it  was required
\n     of it  in the  letter  accompanying
\n     the  Bills\t  of   Exchange.   (this
\n     assertion by  the French Bank is in
\n     consonance with the Preamble of ICC
\n     Rules  which   says   that\t  “these
\n     provisions\t    apply     to     all
\n     Collections… Unless  contrary  to
\n     the provisions  of a national state
\n     or\t local\t now  and\/or  regulation
\n     which cannot be departed from.”)
\n     It\t was,\tthus,  apparent\t to  the
\n     respondent that  there  was  little
\n     hope the\tentire\tamount\tcovering
\n     the goods\tsupplied by  it\t to  the
\n     French  Buyer  would  be  paid  and
\n     therefore, it  acted in a dexterous
\n     and sophisticated\tmanner to fasten
\n     the liability  on the  appellant by
\n     branding it  as  negligent\t is  not
\n     writing specifically  to the French
\n     Buyer for co-acceptance in spite of
\n     its letter\t NO. 2776 of 26.8.91 and
\n     to support\t this plea  by evidence,
\n     it forged\tthe letter  in\tquestion
\n     forgetting\t  that\t there\t existed
\n     another letter  NO.  2775\tof  that
\n     date in  which the\t requirement  of
\n     co-acceptance by  French  Bank  was
\n     indicated.\t Indeed,   the\t Persian
\n     saying that “DAROGH GO RA HAFIZA NA
\n     BASHAD” (A\t LIAR HAS NO MEMORY ) is
\n     the still the time tested truth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  face of overwhelming evidence, the entry in the
\nrespondent’s record  indicating that  letter  NO.  2776\t was
\nissued cannot  be accepted.  Significantly, the\t copy of the
\ndisputed letter bears and endorsement of “Receipt and Rubber
\nStamp” allegedly  of the  appellant  but  the  copy  of\t the
\nadmitted letter\t No. 2775  does not  bear any endorsement of
\nreceipt which the respondent had acted.\n<\/p>\n
43. In view of the above, and if the letter No. 2776 (forged
\nby the\trespondent) is\texcluded from  the  evidence,  there
\nremains only  the letter  No. 2775  of 26.8.1991 in which is
\nwas not\t indicated by  the respondent  to the  appellant  to
\nwrite to  the French  Bank to  deliver the documents only on
\nco-acceptance by  it. The  appellant, in  the circumstances,
\nwas justified  in not mentioning co-acceptance by the French
\nBank. The  case of  the respondent  being false and based on
\nfabricated evidence has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  are consequently  allowed,  and  both\t the
\njudgments  of\tthe  Commission,   namely  judgments   dated
\n16.11.1993 and\t13.12.1994 are\tset aside  and the  Original
\nComplaint  of\tthe  respondent\t  is  dismissed\t with  costs
\nquantified at Rs. 25,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 Author: S S Ahmad. Bench: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad PETITIONER: INDIAN BANK Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA} PVT.LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/08\/1996 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 - 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\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-13T23:51:46+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=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-13T23:51:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\"},\"wordCount\":9020,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\",\"name\":\"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-13T23:51:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 - 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\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-13T23:51:46+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":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996","datePublished":"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-13T23:51:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996"},"wordCount":9020,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996","name":"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-13T23:51:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-bank-vs-ms-satyam-fibres-india-pvt-ltd-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Bank vs M\/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/83990","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=83990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83990\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}