AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.410 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.37 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2767 OF 2002 Wall Street Finance Ltd. .... Appellant Vs. Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Vikram Nankani i/b M/s. Nankani & Associates for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh P. Khobragade i/b Lambe & Co. for respondent 1. Mr. Girish Thakur i/b Advani & Co. for respondent 2. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- 1. The appellant is original defendant 2. Respondent 1 is the original plaintiff. Respondent 2 is original defendant 1. Respondent 3 is original defendant 3. AJN 2 2. The plaintiff has filed the instant summary suit against the defendants praying that they be directed to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff an amount of US$ 70,000 equivalent to Rs.33,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. 3. The gist of the plaintiff's case is that on 27/5/1997, Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized 140 travelers' cheques bearing VISA Brand from vessel Ya Haji Pir. The same were issued by defendant 1 by signing on the indicated spot and were duly discharged and were ready for payment to the holders and, therefore, according to the plaintiff, they are negotiable instruments. Investigation revealed that the said cheques were to be smuggled out of India. Investigation further revealed that defendant 1 engaged defendant 2 as their agents and defendant 2 in turn engaged defendant 3 as their sub-agents. As per the agreement, defendant 2 is required to remit the sale proceeds of the travelers cheques sold, on weekly basis to the bank account of defendant 1 and there is a similar agreement between defendant 2 and defendant 3. According to the plaintiff, by virtue of order dated AJN 3 8/7/1998 passed under section 113(d) of the Customs Act, which is annexed to the plaint as Ex-D, the adjudicating authority confiscated the said travelers cheques and, hence, the said travelers cheques stand vested in the Government of India, who have become rightful owners thereof. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. The present notice of motion is taken out by the appellant/defendant 2 praying that as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as against defendant 2, they may be discharged. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant 2. He submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the suit discloses no cause of action against defendant 2. Learned counsel submitted that, in fact, it is a summary suit based on travelers cheques issued by defendant 1. He submitted that defendant 2 is neither an endorsee nor liable to pay under the negotiable instruments to the plaintiff. He further submitted that without defendant 2, decree can be passed and claim, if found sustainable, can be sustained against defendant 1. He submitted that therefore, learned Single Judge erred in AJN 4 dismissing the motion. 5. We are not impressed by the submissions of learned counsel. The case of the plaintiff is that there is inter se relationship of the Principal, the Agent and the Sub-Agent between the defendants. Defendant 1 has honoured all the VISA Brand travelers' cheques of the value of about rupees thirteen crores, which were sold by defendant 3 to various travelers abroad from 21/3/1997 to 27/5/1997. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of US$ 70,000 together with interest to the plaintiff. At this stage, in the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant 2. The points which are urged by learned counsel for the appellant will have to be examined after the evidence is led. Keeping all the questions open, we dismiss the appeal. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]