CII decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of unpaid trade finance facility amount and adjusted interest rate based on sanction letters in an undefended suit.
Suit decreed for recovery of Rs.5,28,33,872.27 with interest at 14% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S1565-10.doc
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 1565 OF 2010
M/s.SBI Global Factors Ltd. .. Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s.K.K.Polycolor India Ltd. & ors. .. Defendants
Ms.Luann Crasto i/b K.Ashar & Co., for plaintiff. Witness Mr.Rahul Singh Executive-Legal of plaintiff present .
CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Monday 8 July 2013
P.C.:
The plaintiff, a subsidiary of State Bank of India and a limited Company has filed this suit seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.5,28,33,878.27 along with 18 % p.a. Interest from the defendant Nos.1 to 7.
2
S1565-10.doc
defendant No.1 passed a resolution thereby in respect of terms and conditions of the sanction. Subsequently, at the request of defendant No.1 for modification of certain terms of the sanction letter, a fresh sanction letter was issued on 10 August 2007. It was clarified that the fresh sanction letter with the conditions of the initial sanction letter and subsequent amendments would continue to be part of the new sanction letter. Thereafter the defendant No.1 executed various documents such as Demand Promissory Notes, the Global Accounts Receivable Management Agreement, Import Factoring Agreement, Letter of Undertakings, details of accounts, details of which are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint.
3
S1565-10.doc
amount.
4
S1565-10.doc
accounts in the name of defendant No.1 and it was noticed that there was a short fall of the amounts to be repaid. The plaintiff demanded the sums from the defendant No.1 pursuant to which cheques were issued by defendant No.1 which were dishonoured. The plaintiff by notice dated 17 March 2009 called upon the defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 to repay the outstanding amount. Since the amount was not paid an advocate’s notice was issued on 22 August 2009. Inspite of receipt of notice no amount was paid. Hence, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for the recovery of the amount, particulars of which have been set out in the particulars of claim annexed to the plaint.
“This suit has been instituted for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,28,33,878.27 (Rupees Five Crores Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Eight and Twenty Seven Paise only) in respect of the Trade Finance Facility granted by the plaintiff to the first defendant.
S1565-10.doc
5
notice of motion absolute. Thereafter, on 4 January 2013, none appeared on behalf of the defendants so also on 22 March 2013.
S1565-10.doc
7
S1565-10.doc
the plaintiff to the defendants have gone unanswered. Thus from the perusal of the affidavit executed by the plaintiff and the documents which are placed on record the liability of defendants to pay the amount due to the plaintiff is established. As stated above the defendant No.2 to 6 have executed guarantees in respect of the transaction in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.7 has executed a corporate guarantee. In the circumstances the claim of the plaintiff of Rs.5,28,33,872.27 from all the defendants jointly and severally, is justified.
N.M.JAMDAR, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit for recovery of unpaid trade finance facility amount is maintainable in the absence of defendant appearance.
M/s.K.K.Polycolor India Ltd.
N.M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
