IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.332 OF 2007. SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.332 OF 2007. SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.332 OF 2007. IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2341 OF 2006. SUMMARY SUIT NO.2341 OF 2006. SUMMARY SUIT NO.2341 OF 2006. Standard Chartered Bank ..Plaintiff versus India Fintrade Limited ..Defendant Mr.Zubin Behram Kamdin with Mr.Paulose Abraham i/b. M/s. Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co. for the Plaintiff Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/b. Vivek Sharma with Ms. Amrim Saheed for the Defendant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 10th Nov., 2008. DATED : 10th Nov., 2008. DATED : 10th Nov., 2008. P.C. 1. The present suit is filed for recovery of the diverse amounts on the basis of three bills of exchange coupled with the Deed of Assignment dated 9.3.2006 purported to have been executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Summons for Judgment is taken out. Parties have completed the pleadings. 2. M/s. Ransat plc executed three bills of exchange dated 6.3.2003, 17.3.2003 and 9.3.2003 for the respective amounts payable at 90 days and those bills of exchange were said to have been accepted by India Fintrade Ltd. According to plaintiffs by -2- Deed of Assignment dated 9.3.2006 the rights in respect of the three bills of exchange came to be assigned to the plaintiffs, pursuant to that the present suit is filed on 19.5.2006 after completing the formalities like issuance of notice etc. 3. I have extensively heard learned advocates on both the sides and propose to give reasons for the points which have been raised before the Court. 4. Bills of Exchange came to be executed in London, they were not stamped at all. Noting of protest was done in May 2006. On each of the Bill of Exchange endorsement is made by the Stamp Office of the Government of Maharashtra showing that a particular amount has been paid with stamp and date. The said endorsements are of 24.7.2006. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs these amounts have been paid after determination of penalty amount. No endorsement showing that adjudication proceedings were finalised and penalty has been paid is found. Even otherwise according to plaintiffs themselves, provisions of Section 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 permit bringing bills of exchange executed out of India for the purpose -3- of due transaction and stamp duty is required to be paid within three months. If noting of protest, was done in the month of May 2005, stamp duty or penalty ought to have been paid within three months from May 2005. The very fact that certain amount of stamp duty is being paid only in July 2006, would clearly go to show that provisions of Section 18 is not been complied with. The present suit is filed on 19.5.2006. Stamp duty having been paid on 24.7.2006 (with or without penalty) would clearly go to show that on the day when the suit came to be filed, the bills were without payment of any stamp duty much less penalty. This is a point which goes in favour of the defendants. It is required to be noted that the present suit is not filed on the strength of three bills of exchange. The plaintiffs claim that they derived right to recover the amounts covered by three bills of exchange, pursuant to the Deed of Assignment purported to have been executed in their favour on 9.3.2006. The transaction dated 9.3.2006 would go to show that actionable claim came to be transferred in favour of the plaintiffs. If this be so, considering the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of CPC, institution of the present suit as summary -4- suit on the strength of Deed of Assignment to which the present defendants are not a party will have to be termed as suit not within the parameters of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of CPC and hence institution of suit on the basis of Deed of Assignment dated 9.3.2006 and three bills of exchange as summary suit is not maintainable. 5. Notice of transfer, as envisaged under Section 131 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been given by the plaintiffs and this point is also in favour of the defendants. 6. The plaintiff is a bank as understood within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. If this is so, the provisions of Section 17 require that the claim of recovery of dues of the bank are required to be instituted before the Tribunal established under the aforesaid Act when the claim is for an amount more than Rs.10 lakhs. The plaintiffs have prayed for decree in terms of U.S.Dollars 1,68,240.08 and have valued the suit at paragraph 14 at Rs.1,14,83,881.20 which is in any way more than Rs.10 lakhs. The learned Counsel for -5- the plaintiffs could not point out to the Court any provision under the aforesaid Act which would exempt a foreign bank as is argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs. If this be so, the claim for recovering amount, based on recovery of the amount of bills of exchange ought to have been filed before the Tribunal established under the said Act. This also goes to the root of the matter. 7. The discussion aforesaid clearly indicates that triable issues are raised by the defendants in the present case and that the defendants are entitled to unconditional leave. Hence the Order. ORDER i. Defendants are granted unconditional leave. ii. Defendants to file written statement on or before 7th January, 2009. iii. Original Bills of Exchange are returned to the learned Counsel for plaintiffs. -6- iv. Suit to appear on board on 8.1.2009. To be shown in the column of directions. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)