Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. The State Bank of India & Ors

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J. DECEMBER 08, 2008 mm

i.6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order: December 08, 2008 + RFA 497/2006 GRACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Bassi, Advocate versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Adv. with Mr. Nitish, Advocate for SBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Vide impugned order dated 10.5.2006 suit filed by the appellant seeking damages in sum of Rs.3,09,000/- has been held to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.44,30,994/- having 4 distinct heads being:- A. Rs.31,28,421/- B. Rs.10,15,955/- C. Rs. 2,64,618/- D. Rs. 22,000/- ______________ Total: Rs.44,30,994/- ______________ 4. The material allegations in the said suit were that the appellant was a customer of State Bank of India and was availing various credit facilities from the bank. That two letters of credit were negotiated through the bank for which goods were exported and requisite applications submitted to the bank for realization of the dues. It was alleged that the officers of the bank remained negligent in not realizing the dues covered by the letter of credit resulting in the foreign buyer receiving the consignments and no money flowing to the coffers of the appellant. Stating that after the appellant move the "Banking Ombudsman", the officers of the bank could recover the money due under only one export transaction; it was stated that money due under the other export consignment in sum of Rs.31,28,421/- was recoverable by the appellant. Interest on said sum for the pre-suit period was claimed at Rs.10,15,955/-. Pertaining to the export consignment for which the money was subsequently realized by the bank and credited in the account of the appellant, loss of interest in sum of Rs.2,64,618/- was claimed. Rs.22,000/- were claimed as lawyer"s fee who served pre-suit notice. 5. A second suit was filed in which after narrating the facts which were pleaded in the earlier suit, as the backdrop facts of the action in the second suit, it was stated that due to the fact that the appellant had approached the "Banking Ombudsman", the officers of the bank and in particular the Deputy General Manager, Sh.D.S.Dass and the Chief Manager Sh.W.V.G. Venkata Ramana became inimical towards the appellant resulting in a malicious action on their part to withdraw the facilities granted by the bank to the appellant; stating that the same was a tortuous act, damages were claimed not only against the bank but even against the tort- feasors. 6. The second suit which sought damages in sum of Rs.3,09,000/- has been held to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge is, to quote:- "I find that paragraph no.1 if these two plaints are identical. Similarly, the contents of para 5, para 6, para 7, para8, para 9 and para 10 of the present suit are almost identical to para 4, para 10, para 12, para 13, para 16 and para 19 of the suit pending disposal before the Hon"ble High Court. There may be a few minor variations here and there. The facts justifying the filing of the two suits are almost identical. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is a public limited company. It was enjoying cash credit limit vide account no.01600005374 from the Industrial Finance Branch of Defendant no.1. In the suit bearing no.1145/03 which is pending disposal before the Hon"ble High Court, it was alleged by the Plaintiff that "to cover up its negligence, deficiency in private services and failure to perform contractual and professional obligations, the Defendant illegally and wron