Swiss Bank Corporation and Canara Bank Vs Jai Hind Oil Mills Co and anr - Citation 357533 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

M.L. Pendse, J.

1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated April 17, 1989, passed by the learned single judge in Suit No. 807 of 1986. By the impugned judgment the learned judge decreed the suit and dismissed the counter-claim filed by defendant No. 1. The facts giving rise to institution of the suit are as follows :

The plaintiffs (Jai Hind Oil Mills Co.) are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and carry on the business of dealing in the manufacture of various types of edible oils and are also engaged in the business of importing and exporting diverse goods into and from India. On August 3,1985, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase diverse quantities of Turkish chick peas 1985 crop from defendant No. 4 (Interocean Reefers A. G., a firm incorporated under the laws in force in Switzerland) under the terms and conditions which are incorporated in confirmation notes issued by Tri Une, Produce, Brokers of defendant No. 4. The first consignment note is in respect of purchase of 1500 metric tons of Turkish chick peas size 29/30, while the second is for 300 metric tons of size 31 UP, and the third for 1000 metric tons of size 26/28. The terms and conditions of the three confirmation notes are identical, save and except the size and the price. The confirmation notes provided that payment was to be made by confirmed irrevocable, unrestricted, transferable letter of credit to be established by the buyer in favour of the seller, on their bankers, for 105 per cent, of contract value. The notes further provide that payment was to be made by the buyer within 120 days from the bill of lading date, interest seller's account, with terms 5 per cent, more or less in quantity and value proportionately acceptable. It further provides that letter of credit to be confirmed by any prime corresponding bank in Switzerland with confirmation charges to the account of the buyer. The draft drawn on the confirming bank was acceptable. The other terms and conditions of the confirmation notes provided that letter of credit to be established by the buyer shall reach the seller on or before August 9, 1985, permitting shipment up to September 7, 1985, and further 21 days for negotiation of documents from bill of lading date. The goods were to be shipped at the Turkish port and the letter of credit was to be made available for negotiations with seller's bank. The bank of defendant No. 4 was the Swiss Credit Bank, Luzern, Switzerland {hereinafter referred to as 'the Credit Bank').

2. In pursuance of the confirmation notes, the plaintiffs applied on August 7, 1985, to defendant No. 1 (Canara Bank, a nationalised bank) for opening an irrevocable letter of credit for the total value of United States dollars 13,78,413.75, equivalent to Indian Rs. 1,59,12,424. The application recites that the letter of credit was to be established through the Credit Bank. The credit was to be issued in accordance with the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1974 Revision), International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 290. The plaintiffs in the application had agreed that the credit is opened entirely at their own risk and will honour all drafts presented, even though the goods agreed to be purchased fail to arrive. The plaintiffs also confirmed that Canara Bank would be relieved entirely from all responsibilities whatsoever for regularity, genuineness and/or validity of any document which the bank may be called upon to receive on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs promised to reimburse Canara Bank the amount of the payment and charges which Canara Bank would be required to discharge in favour of the bank which would confirm the letter of credit. In accordance with the application of the plaintiffs, Canara Bank opened letter of credit dated August 9, 1985, in favour of original defendant No. 4 and on the same day a telex message was sent to defendant No. 2 (Swiss Bank Corporation, a banking corporation constituted under the provisions of the laws in force in Switzerland, and hereinafter referred to as 'Swiss Bank'), which was the negotiating bank or a confirming bank. By the telex message Swiss Bank was informed that the letter of credit is available to the aggregate sum of United States dollars 13,12,775 and it is open for Swiss Bank to accept the draft payable at 120 days from the date of bill of lading, provided the following documents are presented by defendant No. 4 or their bankers :

(a) Signed commercial invoices ;

(b) Certificate of origin certifying that the goods are of Turkish origin ;

(d) Insurance policy in the negotiable form ;

(e) Combined certificate of phytosanitary and fumigation certificate issued by authorised institution ;

(f) Certificate of weight and quality issued by S. G. S. (Merein) or their correspondent in Turkey at the port of loading ; and

(g) Packing list in triplicate.

3. The letter of credit also provided for additional conditions, and the two relevant conditions are :

(f) Latest date for negotiation September 29, 1985.

4. The shipment was to be made not later than September 7, 1985. It is an accepted position that the date of shipment was subsequently modifiedas September 30, 1985, while the latest date for negotiation was advanced to October 21, 1985. The letter of credit specifically recites that Swiss Bank should accept the documents provided that all the terms and conditions of the credit are strictly complied with and then to accept the draft and reimburse from the account of Canara Bank available with original defendant No. 3 (Bankers Trust Company, International Division, a banking company constituted under the provisions of the laws in force in the United States of America and having its office in New York City). The letter of credit further required Swiss Bank to despatch the documents to Canara Bank in two sets by consecutive registered air-mail. It was made clear that the letter of credit is subject to Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1983 Revision) International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400.

5. On September 13, 1985, original defendant No. 4 obtained a marine insurance policy, which is a bearer policy. On September 14, 1985, the letter of credit was amended in respect of the S. G. S. certificate and fumigation and phytosanitary certificate. On September 20, 1985, defendant No. 4 entered into a charter party agreement with owners of'the vessel, which was to carry the goods to Bombay. On September 28, 1985, defendant No. 4 secured the phytosanitary certificate and the bills of lading were issued by the shippers on September 30, 1985. The S. G. S. certificate was also issued on September 30, 1985. A certificate was issued by the shipping agency at Port Merein in Turkey certifying that the vessel M. V. Dutchman is classified 100-A-l in Lloyds Register of Shipping as required by the terms of the letter of credit. On October 2, 1985, commercial invoices were issued by defendant No. 4, and on October 4, 1985, certificates of origin and packing lists were issued. It is required to be stated at this juncture that though the letter of credit permitted part shipment, the entire consignment of 2800 metric tons under three confirmation notes was loaded on the vessel M. V. Dutchman.

6. On October 21, 1985, Credit Bank forwarded the documents remittance advice to Swiss Bank and Swiss Bank accepted the draft or bill of exchange payable to the Credit Bank 120 days from the date of the bill of lading, that is January 28, 1986. The bill of exchange was drawn by defendant No. 4 and was payable to Credit Bank and was accepted by Swiss Bank on October 23, 1985. Swiss Bank forwarded the commercial as well as shipping documents to Canara Bank on October 23, 1985 itself and the documents were received by the Foreign Department of Canara Bank on October 29, 1985. It appears that till November 14, 1985, the Foreign Department did not take any action in respect of the documents and only thereafter the documents were forwarded to the Mandavi branch, where the plaintiffs had their account, for acceptance. On November 15, 1985, Canara Bank despatched a telex message to Swiss Bank informing them that the documents are not accepted on account of discrepancy in the S. G. S. certificate, the discrepancy being that the certificate did not describe the merchandise specifications as per item 3 of the letter of credit. Swiss Bank rejected the objection and, thereafter, on November 19, 1985, Canara Bank forwarded the documents to the plaintiffs for acceptance. On November 20, 1985, the plaintiffs informed Canara Bank that the documents should be rejected as there were several discrepancies and, thereupon, Canara Bank sent telex message to Swiss Bank reiterating that the documents suffer from several discrepancies. Swiss Bank asserted that the documents were free of discrepancies and Canara Bank thereupon informed the plaintiffs on November 28, 1985, that the documents on verification were found to be in compliance with the terms of the letter of credit and prevailing Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits.

7. Though as per the bill of lading the goods were loaded on vessel M.V. Dutchman at Port Merein on September 30, 1985, and though in normal circumstances the vessel should have reached Bombay Port within about three weeks, the vessel did not arrive till the end of December, 1985, and thereupon the plaintiffs commenced enquiries and claimed to have contacted defendant No. 4, the shippers and other concerned authorities. In or about the last week of January, 1986, the plaintiffs requested defendant No. 4 to extend the date of payment of draft accepted by Swiss Bank and it is the claim of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 4 agreed to extend the due date of payment up to April 1, 1986. Defendant No. 4 informed the Credit Bank about such arrangement and the Credit Bank in its turn informed Swiss Bank that the plaintiffs desired to extend the draft by further 60 days with interest to opener's account. Swiss Bank informed Canara Bank that there may not be any objection provided defendant No. 4 consent to the course suggested. Swiss Bank also suggested that an advance could be given to defendant No. 4 provided Canara Bank is willing to pay interest and then the amount would be debited against the Canara Bank only on April 1, 1986. The plaintiffs informed Canara Bank that defendant No. 4 beneficiary is willing to extend the date for payment of bill of exchange and make it payable 180 days instead of 120 days from the date of bill of lading. Canara Bank accordingly informed Swiss Bank on January 24, 1986, and a telex message was received from Swiss Bank accepting the suggestion for extension of date. Canara Bank, thereupon, informed Swiss Bank that Bankers Trust Company would honour the claim of Swiss Bank on April 1, 1986.

8. The plaintiffs claimed that the vessel, on which the consignment was loaded, never reached Bombay Port and the plaintiffs on enquiries learnt that the owners of the ship had withdrawn the vessel from the charter and the ship was lying in international waters somewhere off Port Said in Egypt. Shamlal Kishnani, a partner of the plaintiff firm, then proceeded to Holland and enquired from defendant No. 4 as well as the owners of the ship about the fate of the transaction. The plaintiffs claimed that on enquiries Shamlal realised that a fraud was played by defendant No. 4 by presenting documents which were not genuine. It was noticed that though the bill of lading evidenced shipment on September 30, 1985, the date was preponed as loading of the vessel had started at Port Merein only on October 1, 1985. Shamlal felt that the fraud was committed by loading the consignment after the due date from certificate dated December 27, 1985, issued by State Railways Enterprises. Shamlal also felt that the S. G. S. certificate was not genuine and the phytosanitary certificate was tampered with so as to alter the date from October, 1985, to September, 1985. Shamlal returned to Bombay on March 11, 1986, and, thereafter, informed Canara Bank about the alleged fraud noticed.

9. While Shamlal was abroad, the plaintiffs lodged a claim sometime in February, 1986, with the insurance company on the strength of the bearer marine insurance policy. The plaintiffs also instituted a suit in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar on March 7, 1986, against the owners of the vessel claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners of the cargo loaded on the vessel by defendant No. 4. The insurance company rejected the claim made by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were also unable to secure any interim relief in the suit instituted in the Gibraltar court. There is one more fact which is required to be stated, and that is that on February 27, 1986. the plaintiffs requested Canara Bank to extend the date of the forward sales contract to April 1, 1986, and this extension was sought after the plaintiffs had agreed with defendant No. 4 to extend the last date of shipping to October 15, 1985. The plaintiff registered the forward sales contract with NAFED (National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), which is a canalising agency for the import of chick peas and which could register the contract provided it is still operative.

10. It is not in dispute that the vessel did not arrive at Bombay and the consignment was not available. The plaintiffs apprehending that Canara Bank would reimburse Swiss Bank by April 1, 1986, and, thereafter, will seek reimbursement from the plaintiffs, instituted a suit in this court on April 24, 1986, joining Canara Bank, Swiss Bank, Bankers Trust Company and Interocean Reefers as party defendants. The reliefs sought were a declaration that Canara Bank had acted negligently in the matter relating to letter of credit while the Swiss Bank failed to properly examine the documents and thereby acted in breach of obligations as the confirming bank and, therefore, was not entitled to make any claim for reimbursement of payment under the letter of credit. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction restraining Canara Bank from making payment to Swiss Bank or from demanding or recovering any amount from the plaintiffs. An injunction was also sought against Swiss Bank from making any claim for reimbursements from Canara Bank or Bankers Trust Company.

11. The plaint as originally filed claimed that defendant No. 4 had played fraud in tendering documents to Swiss Bank and Swiss Bank had failed to properly scrutinise the documents. The plaint also alleged that the negotiation required under the letter of credit was not completed within the period referred to and, therefore, Swiss Bank was not justified in accepting the draft tendered by the Credit Bank. The plaint did not disclose that the plaintiffs had lodged a claim with the insurance company and filed a suit in the Gibraltar court. The plaint also did not disclose that the plaintiffs had sought extension of the forward sales contract. The plaint underwent amendments from time to time and several additional contentions were raised. Canara Bank filed a written statement setting out relevant facts and claiming that the allegations of fraud was without any basis. Canara Bank also claimed that documents were presented and negotiated within the stipulated period and Canara Bank is bound to reimburse Swiss Bank. Canara Bank also filed a counter-claim claiming that the plaintiffs were bound to reimburse and sought a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,59,95,897 with further interest at the rate of 16 1/2 per cent, per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 1,76,33,000 from the date of the suit till realisation. Canara Bank also sought consequential reliefs in respect of hypothecated securities, mortgages, etc.

12. The Swiss Bank also filed a written statement and claimed that the plaintiffs had no cause of action to seek any relief against defendant No. 2. Swiss Bank also claimed that the assertion that the documents tendered by original defendant No. 4 were forged was without substance. Swiss Bank claimed that the documents were tendered through Credit Bank on October 21, 1985, and were scrutinised and the draft was accepted on October 23, 1985. Swiss Bank denied that the documents, tendered and accepted, suffered from discrepancies and were not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. Swiss Bank then pleaded that though extension of date for payment of the draft was discussed as consent of the beneficiary (original defendant No. 4) was not sought for or obtained for drawing a separate draft, Swiss Bank was bound to pay the amount as demanded by the Credit Bank on the expiry of 120 days from the date of bill of lading. Swiss Bank pleaded that the amount was paid over to the beneficiary and Swiss Bank had agreed with Canara Bank only to delay reimbursement till April 1, 1986, on the assurance that interest would be paid. Swiss Bank also claimed that the documents tendered did not contain any discrepancy, nor the alleged fraud was known to Swiss Bank at the time of acceptance of the documents or on the date of payment. It was further contended that even assuming that there was a fraud on the part of defendant No. 4 in antedating the bill of lading and there were discrepancies in the documents tendered, still the plaintiffs are estopped from making any complaint as the plaintiffs had waived the right to reject the documents by their conduct and claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners of the consignment. It was also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff firm was not duly registered.

13. The plaintiffs did not care to serve original defendants Nos. 3 and 4 with writ of summons of the suit. The suit was taken up in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court while disposing of an appeal preferred by Swiss Bank and Canara Bank against the interim order passed by this court (see Swiss Bank Corporation v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. [1989] 66 Comp Cas 241 (Bom)) restraining Canara Bank from reimbursing Swiss Bank and demanding reimbursement from the plaintiffs. At the beginning of the trial, the learned judge noticing that the plaintiffs had not served defendants Nos. 3 and 4 enquired as to whether the plaintiffs are desirous to do so and if so, expressed willingness to grant time, but the plaintiffs specifically stated that they had no desire to serve defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and their names should be deleted. Accordingly, the suit proceeded only against the remaining two defendants, that is Canara Bank and Swiss Bank. The trial judge raised several issues on the strength of the pleadings and the parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. On behalf of the plaintiffs, their two partners Shamlal and Prithviraj were examined. The plaintiffs also examined two other witnesses, Peter Lowe and Cakurova, a lawyer from Turkey. Canara Bank examined their three officers, N.S.V. Shenoy, K.P.K. Shenoy and S.V. Mangaonkar. Canara Bank also examined Mr. Madeira, an expert witness, to depose about the manner and performance of commercial transactions. Swiss Bank examined Franz Oehen, Assistant Director, who was in charge of the department, where the documents tendered by Credit Bank were accepted on October 21, 1985, and draft for payment was accepted. Swiss Bank also examined Mr. Bernard Whelbe, an expert in respect of banking transactions. The parties also produced a large number of documents in support of their respective claims.

14. The trial judge by the impugned judgment held that the plaintiffs had a cause of action to maintain the suit against Swiss Bank. It was further held that the plaintiff-firm was duly registered. The trial judge also held that the documents were not presented to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, and which was a cut-off date and, consequently, the action of the Swiss Bank in accepting documents on a subsequent date was in violation of the terms of the letter of credit. It was further held that even assuming that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985, as Swiss Bank failed to scrutinise the documents and accept the draft before closing hours of the bank on October 21, 1985, subsequent acceptance was invalid. The learned judge further held that the documents tendered to Swiss Bank suffer from discrepancies and Swiss Bank acted negligently in not carrying out proper scrutiny while accepting the documents. On the issue of fraud, it was held that original defendant No. 4 had committed fraud by antedating the bill of lading, but this fraud was to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek any relief oh that count. It was further held that Swiss Bank was aware of the fraud and had colluded with original defendant No. 4 in accepting the documents and issuing the draft and making payment. The trial judge held that though the evidence clearly indicated that the plaintiffs had waived discrepancies in the documents and their conduct indicates that they had accepted the documents by claiming to be the owners of the consignment, still the finding on waiver should be recorded against the defendants in view of the collusion between original defendant No. 4 and Swiss Bank and also on the ground of negligence of Canara Bank. On the strength of these findings, the trial judge decreed the plaintiffs' suit in terms of prayers (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and (b)(i) and (ii) after deleting certain portions. The counter-claim filed by Canara Bank was dismissed. Canara Bank and Swiss Bank have filed separate appeals against the decree passed by the trial court and both appeals are now disposed of by this judgment.

15. Hearing of the appeals was fixed with the consent of the parties on January 11, 1993. In view of the disturbance in the city, the court staff was unable to reach the court and, therefore, by consent of counsel the hearing commenced in Chambers of one of us (Pendse J.) on January 11, 1993. On January 11 and 12, 1993, Shri Kapadia, counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, did not attend, but his assistant was present. Shri Kapadia appeared on January 13, 1993, and the hearing commenced in court from January 14, 1993, onwards. None of counsel had any grievance about the hearing in Chambers, nor did Shri Kapadia raise any objection to the hearing having commenced while he was not present on the first two days. After considering exhaustive arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and the respondenfs, the following questions fall for determination :

PointsAnswers

(1) Whether the plaintiffs had cause of action to file suit against Swiss Bank ?

Yes. (Para 12)(2) Whether the plaintiff firm was duly registered, and if not, whether the suit was maintainable under section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act ?

Not registered. Suit not maintainable. (Para.- 13/ 14)

(3) Whether the documents were presented by Credit Bank to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985 ?

Yes. (Para 15/16)(4) Whether Swiss Bank was required to scrutinise and accept the documents on October 21, 1985, itself and the scrutiny and acceptance thereafter is not permissible in accordance with terms of letter of credit ?

No. Scrutiny and acceptance after 21-10-1985 legal and valid. (Para. 17/18)

(5) Whether the documents accepted by Swiss Bank were discrepant and Swiss Bank acted negligently in accepting the documents and the draft ?

No. (Paras. 19/20/21/22/ 23)(6) Whether fraud was committed in antedating the bill of lading and thereby the plaintiffs were defrauded ?

No. (Para. 24/25)(7) Whether Swiss Bank was aware of such fraud and colluded with original defendant No. 4 in accepting the documents and making payment ; and

No. (Para. 26/27)(8) Whether the plaintiffs had waived the discrepancies and thereby disentitled from claiming any relief ?Yes. (Para. 28/29/30)

16. The findings on these points would determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree. It is not in dispute that in case the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree, then the counter-claim made by Canara Bank is required to be decreed. We will examine each of the points with reference to the evidence on record and the submissions urged at the hearing after setting out well-settled principles in respect of scope of an irrevocable document.

17. Letters of credit are the most frequent method of payment for goods in the export trade and have been described as the life blood of international commerce. Where payment under a letter of credit is arranged, four stages can normally be distinguished; (a) the exporter and the overseas buyer agree in the contract of sale that payment shall be made under a letter of credit ; (b) the overseas buyer instructs the bank at its place of business (known as the issuing bank) to open a letter of credit on the terms specified by the buyer in its instructions to the issuing bank; (c) the issuing bank arranges with the bank at the locality of the exporter to negotiate, accept or pay the exporters' draft upon delivery of the transport documents by the seller ; and (d) the advising bank informs the exporter that it will negotiate, accept or pay the draft upon delivery of transport documents. The advising bank may do so either without its own engagement or it may confirm the credit opened by the issuing bank. The two fundamental principles relating to letters of credit are :

(i) the autonomy of the credit ; and

(ii) the doctrine of strict performance.

18. The credit is separate from and independent of the underlying contract of sale or other transactions and the bank, which operates the credit, is only concerned to ascertain whether the documents tendered by the seller correspond to those specified in the instructions under the letter of credit. The principle of autonomy of the credit is set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the 'Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits' and the principle is well accepted by the decision of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, : [1981]3SCR300 . In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, which has exhaustively considered a large number of decisions, both Indian and English, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions once again. It is equally not necessary to refer to several passages from Commercial Banking Laws by Pennington and Hudson and from Datris' Law Relating to Commercial Letters of Credit as the said passages were also taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. It is now well-settled that the relationship between the issuing bank and the confirming bank is principal to agent and there is no privity between the purchaser or opener of the letter of credit and the confirming bank. Reference can be usefully made in this connection to the decision in Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Dawson Partners Ltd. [1926] 27 Lloyds Rep 49 (HL). The doctrine of strict compliance'in respect of letters of credit is also well settled and the bank is bound to reject documents which do not strictly conform to the terms of the credit. This is conveniently referred to as doctrine of strict compliance. The reason underlying the rule is that the advising bank is a special agent of the issuing bank and the latter is a special agent of the buyer ; if such agent, who had a limited authority, acts outside his authority, the principal is entitled to disown the act of the agent, who cannot recover from him and has to bear the commercial risk of the transaction. The rule was referred to in Bank Melli Iran v. Barclays Bank [1951] 2 KB 367; 2 Lloyds Rep 367. Article 15 of Uniform Customs and Practice sets out that bankers must examine all documents with reasonable care to ascertain that they appear on their face to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit. Though one of the maxims on which the letter of credit system is founded is the autonomy of the institution, one exception is admitted to the rule and that is, the fraud exception. The issuing bank under the irrevocable credit and the advising bank, if it has added its confirmation, should refuse to honour the absolute undertaking which it has given to the beneficiary to pay, accept or negotiate according to the terms of the credit, if the documents tendered are found to be forged or the beneficiary has committed fraud. The bank is not obliged actively to ascertain whether the alleged fraud can be proved. In cases where the fraud exception is pleaded, it is necessary to establish the fraud clearly and unambiguously. In United Trading Corporation S. A. v. Allied Arab Bank Ltd. [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 554 (CA), it was observed that the court will require strong corroborative evidence of the allegations, usually in the form of contemporary documents, particularly emanating from the beneficiary. It was further observed that if the court considers that on the material before it, the only realistic inference to draw is that of fraud, then the complainant would have made out a sufficient case for fraud. It is not necessary to burden the judgment with more authorities, save and except reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P.) Ltd. : [1988]1SCR1124 , which succinctly sets out the nature and the ambit of the transaction evidenced by a letter of credit. The Supreme Court pointed out that the first contract is between the buyer and seller and it is a contract between principal and principal. The second contract is between the buyer and the issuing bank and is a contract ' also between principal and principal for it is a pure bank-customer relationship. Under this contract, the issuing bank for a commission agrees :

(a) to issue the credit ;

(b) to make payment either itself or through a confirming bank (to pay or to accept or to negotiate bills of exchange drawn by the seller) against the presentation of stipulated documents ;

(d) until the issuing bank is reimbursed the bill of lading and other documents become the security of the issuing bank.

19. The third contract is between the issuing bank and the confirming bank and that is a contract between principal and agent. The issuing bank authorises its agent, that is the confirming bank, to pay to the seller through one of the four prescribed modes laid down in Uniform Credit Policy upon presentation of all the requisite documents under the letter of credit. The fourth contract is between the confirming bank and the seller, under which the confirming bank agrees to pay to the seller against the documents presented and is also a contract between principal and principal.

20. The first point which requires determination is whether the plaintiffs have cause of action to institute a suit against defendant No. 2 Swiss Bank. It was contended on behalf of Swiss Bank that from the nature of the transaction and the relationship between various parties, it is obvious that no privity exists between the plaintiffs and Swiss Bank and in the absence of privity of contract the plaintiffs cannot maintain an action against Swiss Bank. It was contended that even assuming that there were discrepancies in the documents presented to Swiss Bank, still the liability of Swiss Bank is only to Canara Bank who are the principals and Swiss Bank owes no duty or care to the plaintiffs. It is not possible to accede to the contention of the Swiss Bank on this count. The plaint sets out that the cause of action arises against Swiss Bank because the documents were tendered after the stipulated date and were accepted and negotiated after the expiry date. It was also claimed that Swiss Bank was negligent in not properly scrutinising the documents which suffered from several discrepancies. The plaint also alleges that fraud was committed by defendant No. 4 and Swiss Bank colluded with defendant No. 4 in accepting the documents without scrutiny and, therefore, knowledge of the fraud played can be attributed to Swiss Bank. It is undoubtedly true that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and Swiss Bank, but it cannot be overlooked that in case the plaintiffs established fraud on the part of defendant No. 4 and the knowledge of the same is attributed to Swiss Bank, then the action of Swiss Bank in accepting the documents as well as draft and making payment to original defendant No. 4 stands vitiated and is obviously not in accordance with the terms and conditions of letter of credit. In case the plaintiffs could establish that the documents were not tendered to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, which was a cut-off date, then the Swiss Bank cannot seek reimbursement from Canara Bank and consequently Canara Bank cannot make any claim against the plaintiffs on the strength of the letter of credit. In our judgment, though strictly there is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendant No. 2, Swiss Bank on the other, still it is not possible to accede to the submission that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against defendant No. 2, because the facts are so interlinked and/or interconnected that the plaintiffs cannot secure substantial relief against Canara bank without establishing the failure of Swiss Bank in taking precautions while accepting documents from original defendant No. 4. In these circumstances we are in agreement with the finding of the trial judge that the plaintiffs had cause of action to institute the suit against defendant No. 2, Swiss Bank.

21. The defendants claimed that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 69 reads as follows ;

'69. (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any c6urt by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.'

22. The plaint sets out that Jai Hind Oil Mills are a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. A partnership firm is not an independent legal entity and merely represents a trade name of the actual partners. The appellants claim that under Section 69 of the Partnership Act the registration of both, the firm and the partners suing is a condition precedent to the filing of the suit. This position is settled by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Gandhi and Co. v, Krishna Glass Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 Bom 348. The defendants claimed that the extract from the Register of Firms (exhibit 'AJ') produced by the plaintiffs clearly establishes that the names of all the partners of the firm were not duly registered on the date of institution of the suit. To appreciate the claim it is necessary to ascertain who were the partners of the firm on the date of institution of the suit, that is on March 24, 1986. Prior to this date on March 7, 1986, the plaintiffs had instituted a suit in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar and the plaint in that suit is produced at exhibit 4. The suit is instituted in the name of 15 persons who are trading as Jai Hind Oil Mills Company and these names include at serial No. 4 Dewandas Kodumal Kishnani, at serial No. 11, Anil Ramchand Kishnani and at serial No. 15, Rajesh Ramchand Kishnani. Shamlal Kishnani, a partner of the plaintiff firm, deposed in the witness box after perusal of the plaint filed in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar that all 15 persons, whose names are set out in the plaint, were partners of the firm on March 7, 1986. The extract from the Register of Firms is produced and marked as exhibit 'AJ'. The entry dated August 13, 1974, indicates that Devandas Kodumal Kishnani had joined the firm on March 1, 1974, as karta of the Hindu undivided family of Devandas Kodumal. The extract further discloses that Anil Ramchand Kishnani, who was a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm on March 1, 1974, and Anil was to attain majority on June, 23, 1981. The next entry is dated March 8, 1983, and that entry reflects that Rajesh Ramchand Kishnani was a minor and was admitted to the benefits of partnership on August 13, 1982, and was to attain majority on November 9, 1985. The next entry dated August 11, 1988, shows that Rajesh, who attained majority on November 9, 1985, had elected to become a partner. Relying on these entries in the extract, it was contended on behalf of the defendants that on March 24, 1986, when the suit was instituted the names of the three partners were not duly registered. Devandas Kodumal, who had joined the firm as karta of the Hindu undivided family had subsequently instituted the suit in the Gibraltar court on the basis that he is a partner in his personal capacity and this change was never registered. Similarly Anil, who attained majority on June 23, 1981, and was shown as a partner in the Gibraltar suit, was not registered as a partner. In the case of Rajesh, though he attained majority on November 9, 1985, his name as a partner was registered only on August 11, 1988, and, therefore, on the date of the suit he was not registered as a partner. Relying on these circumstances, it was contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar created under Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act. There is considerable merit in the submissions urged on behalf of the defendants, and the conclusion is inescapable that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of proper registration. Shri Kapadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted that the bar under Sub-section (2) of Section 69 is not attracted because the suit is not filed to enforce a right arising from a contract. It was contended that the suit is purely for an injunction restraining Canara Bank from demanding any amount from the plaintiffs and restraining Swiss Bank from demanding reimbursement from Canara Bank, and the relief of injunction, claims learned counsel, is not one arising from a contract. It is impossible to accede to the submission. The claim for injunction is made against Canara Bank on the basis that a contractual relationship existed between the plaintiffs and Canara Bank and the bank failed to discharge its obligation by not taking proper care in scrutinising the documents and advising the plaintiffs to accept the documents by withholding the fact that initially Canara Bank had raised objections on the basis of discrepancies in the documents. It is futile to suggest that the suit for pure injunction is de hors the terms of the contract. In our judgment an injunction cannot be sought unless the plaintiffs have a subsisting right and which is alleged to be infringed by the defendants. The subsisting right of the plaintiffs is on the basis of contractual relationship arising out of obtaining the letter of credit in pursuance of the application. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that the suit is not to enforce a right arising from a contract. It was then contended by learned counsel that the expression used in Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act is 'to enforce a right arising from a contract' and in the present suit the plaintiffs are not enforcing only a right arising from a contract but also a right arising out of a tortious act committed by the banks. It was contended that the suit being to enforce a right which accrued because of the tortious action, it cannot be suggested that that right arises from a contract. It is not possible to accede to the submission in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric, Co., : [1985]1SCR432 . The question before the Supreme Court was whether a dispute inclusive of the arbitrator's jurisdiction comes within the scope or purview of an arbitration clause or not, and it was held that the answer primarily depends upon the terms of the clause itself. The Supreme Court after referring to various decisions recorded its conclusion in paragraph 25 by setting out four propositions, and proposition (2) reads as follows (page 1170) :

'Expressions such as 'arising out of or 'in respect of or 'in connection with' or 'in relation to' or 'in consequence of or 'concerning' or 'relating to' the contract are of the widest amplitude and content and include even questions as to the existence, validity and effect (scope) of the arbitration agreement'.

23. It is obvious that even assuming that the claim made by the plaintiffs arises out of the tortious actions of the defendants, still the alleged tortious liability of the defendants also arises from a contract between the parties. The tort alleged against the defendants is failure to take the requisite care expected of the banker. The occasion to take care arises only in view of the contract between the parties and independent of the contract the suit could not have been maintained on the alleged failure or negligence of the bank to take requisite care. In our judgment, the contention that the suit is one for injunction and in any event liability arises out of the tort and, therefore, is not one to enforce a right arising from the contract cannot be accepted. The learned trial judge accepted the contention of the plaintiffs on this count and we are afraid, we cannot share the view that the suit was not one to enforce a right arising from the contract.

24. Shri Kapadia then submitted that the bar under Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act is not attracted because the sub-section demands that (a) the firm should be registered and (b) the person suing should be shown in the Register of Firms as partner. It was contended that it is not in dispute that the firm is registered and the expression 'persons suing' should be construed as one who has declared the plaint. The plaint was declared by Shamlal, who is admittedly the partner, and whose name is shown in the Register of Firms, and therefore, the requirements of Sub-section (2) are complied with. It is not possible to accede to the submission that the expression 'person suing' means that the person who declares the plaint should be shown in the register as a partner. The expression 'person suing' came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court and in the judgment in Gandhi and Co. v. Krishna Glass Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 Bom 348, the Division Bench held that if the name of one of the partners is not shown in the Register of Firms on the date of filing of the suit, then the suit is not maintainable. The Division Bench approved the identical view taken by the Punjab High Court in Buta Mal Dev Raj v. Chanan Mal, AIR 1964 P&H; 270, and the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Sarvodaya Mills Co. Ltd. v. Mohatta Brothers, : AIR1969Guj178 . We are in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench. The contention of Shri Kapadia that the person suing should be shown as partner in the register is complied with because Shamlal is a partner has no force. A plaint can be declared by any person familiar with the contents of the plaint and that would include even a person who is not a partner. The expression 'person suing' cannot be limited to the person who declares the plaint. In our judgment the requirement of subsection (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act is not complied with as all the partners of the firm on the date of institution of the suit were not shown as partners in the Register of Firms.

25. Rajesh Kishnani was admitted to the benefits of partnership on August 13, 1982, and became a major on November 9, 1985. Rajesh Kishnani was however registered as partner only on August 11, 1988. Shamlal deposed at the trial that Rajesh Kishnani was shown as a partner in the Gibraltar suit and, therefore, it is obvious that Rajesh was a partner on the date of presentation of the suit filed on March 20, 1986, in this court. As Rajesh was not shown as partner on the date of institution of the suit in the Register of Firms, the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 69 is clearly attracted. The trial judge tried to overcome the objection raised on behalf of the defendants as regards non-registration of the name of Rajesh as partner in the Register of Firms by holding that the defendants should not be permitted on highly technical grounds to defeat a just claim. We are afraid, we cannot bypass the clear cut statutory provisions by holding that the objection is highly technical. The objection goes to the root of maintainability of the suit. The learned judge also observed that Rajesh may have been shown as a partner in the Gibraltar suit without his knowledge. The observation is clearly incorrect. Rajesh never entered the witness box and raised any such claim. As regards failure to show the name of minor Anil Ramchand as partner on his attaining majority, the learned judge held that there seems to be some mistake made in the register and the Registrar seems to have made a wrong entry. The trial judge, with respect, overlooked provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, which, inter alia, provide that the statement noted in the Register of Firms to be conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. The extract of the Register of Firms shows that Devandas Kodumal joined the firm in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family. In the suit instituted in the Gibraltar court Devandas Kodumal was shown as partner in his personal capacity and as mentioned hereinabove Shamlal deposed that every person shown as plaintiff in the Gibraltar suit was a partner. As initially Devandas Kodumal had joined as karta of the Hindu undivided family, his subsequent continuation in a different character was also required to be duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. The trial judge observed that the courts outside India cannot be expected to understand the concept of Hindu undivided family and, therefore, Devandas Kodumal might have been shown in his individual capacity in the Gibraltar suit. It is not possible to accede to this line of reasoning, and more so, when even Shamlal did not depose to such state of affairs. In our judgment, it is obvious that all those who were partners of the firm on the date of institution of the suit, were not shown as registered in the Register of Firms and consequently the suit filed on behalf of the firm was not maintainable. In spite of our finding about maintainability of the suit, we do not propose to rest our judgment on this point and will examine the merits of the claim.

26. The next point for consideration is whether the documents were presented by Credit Bank to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985. It is not in dispute that if the documents were not presented on October 21, 1985, then Swiss Bank could not have entertained the documents, accepted the same and accepted the draft for payment in favour of original defendant No. 4. The presentation of documents on October 21, 1985 was mandatory in view of condition (c) of the letter of credit, which provided that the documents must be presented for negotiation within 21 days from the date of shipment. The last date of shipment under the letter of credit was September 30, 1985, and, therefore, it was incumbent to present the documents latest by October 20, 1985. The letter of credit was issued in accordance with Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit and Article 48(a), inter alia, provides that if the expiry date of the credit or the last date of the period of time after the date of issuance of the transport documents for presentation of documents stipulated by the credit falls on a day on which the bank, to which presentation has to be made, is closed, then the stipulated expiry date shall be extended to the first following business day on which such bank is open. It is not in dispute that October 20, 1985, was a Sunday, and, therefore, it was permissible to present the documents on October 21, 1985. Initially the plaintiffs did not dispute that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985. Indeed at the time of consideration of grant of interim relief the complaint of the plaintiffs was that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985, but were not accepted till October 23, 1985, and, therefore, the condition of the letter of credit was not satisfied. In the plaint the complaint was that the documents were presented/negotiated later than 21 days from the date of bill of lading and, therefore, Swiss Bank should have refused to accept the documents and the draft. Subsequently, the plaint was amended just prior to the commencement of the trial and then it was claimed that the documents were not presented until late in the afternoon on October 21, 1985, as alleged by defendant No. 2. Taking advantage of the expression 'as alleged' in the amended plaint, at the trial, it was contended that the documents were not presented on October 21, 1985, and, consequently, Swiss Bank could not have touched the documents after October 21, 1985. Swiss Bank as well as Canara Bank on the other hand contended that the documents were presented to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, at 15.40 hours and were duly received. The defendants led the evidence of Franz Oehen, Assistant, Vice President of Swiss Bank, to establish the fact of presentation of documents on October 21, 1985. The trial judge declined to accept the oral testimony of Oehen on the ground that the uncorroborated word of Oehen could not be accepted. The trial judge also relied upon certain circumstances to warrant a conclusion that the claim of Swiss Bank need not be accepted.

27. Franz Oehen deposed that he is the head of the Documentary Credit Department for over ten years and there are about 7 or 8 persons working under him. The witness deposed that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985, and were received from Credit Bank. The documents were forwarded under the documentary remittance advice. The witness then deposed about the practice followed by the bank in respect of the documents received from other banks. The witness stated that if the documents are hand delivered, then they are received at the information desk at the main entrance of the bank by a lady-receptionist. The receptionist then phones the witness and informs him about receipt of the documents. The witness then sends some person down from his office on the fifth floor to collect, the documents. On receipt of the documents, the witness puts a rubber stamp with the date on the document and puts the time of receipt. The witness then deposed that the documents in the present case were delivered by a messenger of the Credit Bank to the receptionist and after the documents were placed on the desk of the witness, the time of receipt was put and documents then were handed over to Mr. Portmann, who was working under the witness. The witness was shown the original documents where the rubber stamp with the time of receipt in hand of the witness was written. Exhibit 21 is the remittance advice receipt from Credit Bank and the perusal of the same leaves no manner of doubt that it was received on October 21, 1985, at 15.40 hours. The witness further deposed that the bank receives documents in respect of approximately 2000 letters of credit every year and normally the documents are scrutinised and accepted within 2 or 3 days. In the present case the documents were scrutinised on October 22, 1985, and were found to be in order and were accepted on October 23, 1985. It is not in dispute that the documents were accepted on October 23, 1985, and so also the draft payable in favour of original-defendant No. 4. After carefully perusing the evidence of Franz Oehen, we are unable to find any reason to discard the oral testimony that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985. The contemporaneous record maintained by the witness unmistakably establishes and corroborates the oral testimony of presentation of documents on October 21, 1985. The trial judge felt that it was not sufficient for the defendants to examine Franz Oehen, but the defendants ought to have examined Mr. Bolder of the Credit Bank to establish that the documents were forwarded on October 21, 1985. The trial judge also expected the defendants to examine the messenger boy who carried the documents from Credit Bank to Swiss Bank and' also the lady-receptionist who received the documents at the counter. We are unable to find any fault with the defendants for not examining these witnesses. It cannot be overlooked that all the three witnesses were residing abroad and could not be brought before the trial judge without incurring large expenses. Apart from this consideration, it is impossible to imagine how a messenger who carries a large number of documents every day to various departments would remember what documents were carried from Credit Bank to Swiss Bank. It is also difficult to imagine how the messenger boy could depose about the nature of documents when the same must have been forwarded in a closed envelope. The expectation that the receptionist should have been examined is also not justified, because the receptionist could not have remembered how many documents were received on a particular day and when admittedly the receptionist does not maintain a register in respect of receipt of documents. As deposed by Oehen on receipt the receptionist telephones the witness and immediately the documents are collected from the counter. It is also not proper, to find fault for not examining Mr. Dolder, an officer of Credit Bank. Franz Oehen deposed that Credit Bank is a competitor of Swiss Bank and non-examination of Dolder cannot be fatal to the claim of the defendants that the documents were received on October 21, 1985', at 15.40 hours. We are not prepared to accept the contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the uncorroborated word of Oehen should not be accepted. We do not find any infirmity in the testimony of Oehen as regards the date and the time of presentation of the documents.

28. The trial judge proceeded to discard the testimony of Oehen by observing that the behaviour of Swiss Bank was very suspicious and the trial judge relied upon several circumstances to conclude that thedocuments were not presented on October 21, 1985. The circumstances relied on are :

(a) Swiss Bank secured reimbursement from Bankers Trust Company, original defendant No. 3 on March 25, 1986, that is before the due date April 1, 1986 ;

(b) Swiss Bank did not appear in the suit proceedings till December, 1986 ;

(c) in the affidavit filed at the stage of grant of interim relief a deliberate false impression was sought to be created in order to induce the court to believe that the documents were not only presented but were accepted on October 21, 1985 ;

(d) at the hearing of the notice of motion for grant of interim relief, it was argued on behalf of Swiss Bank that the documents were scrutinised and the draft accepted on October 21, 1985, though it was not so ;

(e) Swiss Bank failed to take out third party proceedings in the suit against original defendant No. 4 even though the plaintiffs had alleged fraud at the trial ;

(f) both Swiss Bank and Canara Bank were guilty of not submitting to the orders of the court when fraud was alleged, but on the other hand tried to prevent the plaintiffs from establishing the fraud ;

(g) Franz Oehen sought to produce a receipt purported to have been given to the messenger who delivered the documents and when the receipt was not earlier disclosed ;

(h) the attorneys of Swiss Bank refused to give information as to the name and details of the messenger of Credit Bank who had delivered the documents ;

(i) Swiss Bank did not examine the receptionist who had examined the documents. It is also difficult to believe that an inward register is not maintained by the receptionist ;

(j) Mr. Portmann and Mr. Zberg, who had scrutinised the documents, were not examined ;

(k) Mr. Bolder of the Credit Bank was not examined though the remittance advice (exhibit 21), dated October 21, 1985, was prepared by the Credit Bank ;

(l) Swiss Bank accepted the documents without proper scrutiny and, therefore, there must be collusion between Swiss Bank and original defendant No. 4 ;

(m) The claim of Franz Oehen that he had put the date and the time of receipt of the documents is difficult to believe because Swiss Bank had no standard set practice in that respect ;

(n) Swiss Bank tried to make out a case that there was no extension of time for payment under the letter of credit ;

(o) Swiss Bank deliberately issued the certificate (exhibit 'G') to the effect that the documents were presented within 21 days after shipment and did not disclose that presentation on October 21, 1985, was valid because October 20, 1985, which was the last date, was Sunday ; and

(p) from the manifests of the ship m. v. Dutchman, it is clear that the loading of cargo continued till October 13, 1985, and, therefore, it is possible that the goods were not loaded on September 30, 1985.

29. We have carefully examined each and every circumstance which had appealed to the trial judge, and we are not prepared to attach any importance to any of the circumstances to warrant a conclusion that the oral testimony of Franz Oehen should be discarded. As regards non-examination of Mr. Dolder of the Credit Bank and the receptionist and the messenger boy, it is already pointed out that the expectation that these witnesses should have been produced in the witness box was not justified. It is undoubtedly true that Mr. Portmann and Mr. Zberg, who had scrutinised the documents, were not examined, but it is difficult to appreciate how their non-examination would have advanced the case of Swiss Bank. It is interesting to note in this connection that the cross-examination of Oehen indicates that the plaintiffs repeatedly asked the question as to whether the documents were scrutinised on October 22 or October 23, 1985, and this line of cross-examination makes it clear that the documents must have been received either on October 22, 1985, or a day earlier. Subsequently, the plaintiffs turned around and started claiming that the documents were received only on October 23, 1985. From a close scrutiny of the cross-examination of Franz Oehen an impression is gathered that the plaintiffs were groping in the dark and the cross-examiner was asking multiple questions only to find but some contradictions to discredit the witness. The trial judge was also not right in finding fault with the Swiss Bank because the bank's attorneys did not disclose the name of the messenger boy in spite of enquiry by the plaintiffs. The action of the solicitors in not disclosing the name may not be justifiable, but that cannot be a circumstance to conclude that Franz Oehen was giving false testimony. The trial judge also wondered why at the interim stage Swiss Bank claimed that the documents were not only presented on October 21, 1985, but were scrutinised and accepted on that day itself. This claim of Swiss Bank at the interim stage, felt the learned judge, was a suspicious circumstance, but it is possible that at the interim stage the entire record was not available and the arguments were advanced to prima facie establish that Swiss Bank was not in the wrong. It is necessary to state that as soon as the trial opened it was made clear on behalf of Swiss Bank that the documents were accepted only on October 23, 1985. Shri Kapadia submitted that from the tenor of the affidavits filed at the stage of grant of interim relief, an impression is created that the documents were accepted on October 21, 1985, itself. On perusal of the affidavits, it is not possible to reach such a conclusion. Nowhere in the affidavits it is claimed that the documents were accepted on October 21, 1985. We are also unable to find how the fact that Swiss Bank appeared in the suit in December, 1986, can be treated as a suspicious circumstance. The suit was instituted on March 24, 1986, and ad interim injunction granted was against Canara Bank restraining from reimbursement of Swiss Bank. The legal advice tendered to Swiss Bank was that ad interim injunction will be vacated because in respect of international transactions based on letters of credit injunctions are not granted. In any event, Swiss Bank had already paid the amount to original defendant No. 4 and Canara Bank had assured Swiss Bank of reimbursement. Swiss Bank in these circumstances waited for over seven months and appeared in this court only when the question of grant of interim relief remained pending. We are also unable to blame Swiss Bank for not adopting third party proceedings against original defendant No. 4. It was wholly unnecessary for Swiss Bank to do so as payment was made to defendant No. 4 in pursuance of the letter of credit and Swiss Bank was entitled to reimbursement from Canara Bank and which claim was never disputed. The trial judge was not right in criticising Swiss Bank and Canara Bank for not submitting to the orders of the court on the ground that fraud was alleged and the financial institutions should not resist such claims. The banks were perfectly justified in resisting the claim when it was realised that the plaintiffs had lodged the claim by suppressing a large number of facts and fraud was alleged only on realisation that the goods could not be secured. The banks cannot be faulted for defending the suit and it is uncharitable to observe that the banks were preventing the court from establishing the fraud to possibly assist defendant No. 4 in disproving the same. The circumstance that Swiss Bank does not maintain inward register cannot lead to the conclusion that the transactions of the banks were suspicious. In the age of computers and automation, and which systems are practised in Swiss Bank, it is impossible to expect maintenance of manual registers. It is futile to suggest that even though there was no dispute whatsoever that October 20, 1985, was a Sunday, a fact known to everyone, still the conduct of the Swiss Bank issuing the certificate that the documents were presented within the stipulated period ought to have mentioned the fact that October 20, 1985, was Sunday and failure to do so amounts to deliberately misleading the plaintiffs. The trial judge also felt that Franz Oehen tried to introduce documents which were not disclosed and that shows suspicious conduct on the part of Swiss Bank to establish that documents were presented on October 21, 1986. The conclusion of the trial judge on this count is clearly erroneous. Shri Oehen while under cross-examination was asked whether any receipt was issued to the messenger who brought the documents from Credit Bank. The witness replied that he had not looked whether any document is in existence in that respect. The witness was told to ascertain. The witness then went back to Switzerland and after his return was further cross-examined. The witness was asked the question whether he had found out the document and when the answer was in the affirmative, no further questions were asked. When a copy of the receipt issued to the messenger was then tried to be tendered on behalf of the banks, the trial judge declined ' to take it on record on the ground that the document was not disclosed earlier in the affidavit of documents. The trial judge thus denied permission to produce the receipt, but made observations in the judgment that the attempt to produce the document indicates fabrication of receipt. We are unable to appreciate the conclusion on this aspect. Without production of documents on record it is not permissible to term the documents as fabricated and more so, when it was at the behest of the plaintiffs that the witness found out the documents and was desirous of producing it on record.

30. The trial judge relied upon two more circumstances in respect of extension of the date for payment under letter of credit and the effort of Swiss Bank to seek reimbursement before the due date from Bankers Trust Company, original defendant No. 3, and from these circumstances the learned judge inferred that there must be collusion between Swiss Bank and original defendant No. 4. This aspect will be considered at a later stage while examining whether Swiss Bank was aware of the fraud and was in collusion with original defendant No. 4.

31. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence led by Shamlal, partner of the plaintiffs and of Franz Oehen on behalf of defendant No. 2, and also the oral evidence led on behalf of Canara Bank and the documentary evidence produced in support of the claim, we have no hesitation in concluding that the trial judge was in error in holding that the documents were not presented on October 21, 1985.

32. The next point for determination is whether Swiss Bank, which received the documents on October 21, 1985, was required to scrutinise and accept the documents on that date itself and whether the acceptance on October 23, 1985, violates the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. The two relevant conditions of the letter of credit on this aspect are conditions (c) and (f). Condition (c) reads :

' (c) Documents must be presented for negotiation within 21 days from shipment' ;

33. Condition (f) reads :

'(f) Latest date for negotiation September 28, 1985.'

34. It is not in dispute that the letter of credit is subject to Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, except or otherwise expressly stated. The latest date for negotiation under condition (f) was extended up to October 21, 1985. It is not in dispute that the letter of credit provides for part shipment of consignment. In other words, the contract for supply of 2,800 metric tons of chick peas need not be sent by one vessel but by different vessels, but in respect of each part shipment all the conditions of the letter of credit must be adhered to. In the present case, the entire consignment covered by three confirmation notes is sent by one vessel. The plain reading of condition (c) establishes that the documents must be presented within 21 days from the date of shipment and presentation of documents beyond that date could not be valid. Condition (f) provides for an outside date or which is popularly known as 'expiry date'. In other words, documents cannot be presented after October 21, 1985, which is the expiry date, The seller or beneficiary of the letter of credit, therefore, must comply with both the conditions to secure the benefit of credit. In the present case, the bills of lading were issued on September 30, 1985, and, therefore, the documents were required to be presented under condition (c) on or before October 20, 1985, and that day being Sunday, it was open to present the documents on the next working day, that is, October 21, 1985, and, therefore, condition (c) is satisfied. It was claimed on behalf of the plaintiffs, and which contention was accepted by the trial judge that condition (f) provides that not only the presentation of the documents must be before the expiry date, that is, October 21, 1985, but the documents should be scrutinised and accepted and the draft payable to original defendant No. 4 also accepted by Swiss Bank before October 21, 1985. As mentioned hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the documents were scrutinised and accepted along with the draft payable to original defendant No. 4 on October 23, 1985. The question for determination is whether acceptance of documents after scrutiny on October 23, 1985, was in violation of the terms of credit. To determine the question, it is necessary to ascertain the exact ambit of the two conditions (c) and (f).

35. As the letter of credit issued by Canara Bank is subject to Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit, it would be appropriate to refer to Articles 46 and 47 of this document. Article 46(a) reads as follows :

' 46. (a) All credits must stipulate an expiry date for presentation of documents for payment, acceptance or negotiation.'

36. The expression 'negotiation' in Article 46(a) refers to 'discounting'. Article 47(a), inter alia, provides that in addition to stipulating an expiry date for presentation of documents, every credit which calls for a transport document should also stipulate a specified period of time after the date of issuance of the transport documents during which presentation of documents for payment, acceptance or negotiation must be made. It further provides that if no such period of time is stipulated, banks will refuse documents presented to them later than 21 days after the date of issuance of the transport documents. Article 47(b)(iii) provides that in the case of transport documents evidencing loading on board a named vessel, the date of issuance of the transport document is a date of such notation. In other words, the date is one on which the bills of lading were issued. Article 11 prescribes that all credits must clearly indicate whether they are available by sight payment, by deferred payment, by acceptance or by negotiation. The letter of credit, therefore, must indicate in what manner the credit will be honoured so as to entitle the beneficiary to receive payment upon presentation of documents. The usual four modes of payment are :

(a) payment in cash on scrutiny of documents ;

(b) deferred payment by the bank on presentation of documents ;

(d) negotiation or discounting of a draft drawn by the beneficiary on bank other than the accepting or confirming bank.

37. It is not in dispute that the mode of payment under the suit letter of credit is under category (c). The expression 'negotiation' in Article 11 clearly refers to the mode of payment under category (d), where a draft drawn by the beneficiary of a bank other than accepting bank is negotiated or discounted. It is not in dispute between the parties, and that fact is established by oral evidence of Shri M. S. V. Shenoy, an officer of Canara Bank, that the letter of credit was issued as per the printed form of Canara Bank and several banks use an identical format, including conditions (c) and (f). The testimony of Franz Oehen of Swiss Bank also establishes that similar words, as used in conditions (c) and (f), are used not only by Indian banks but most of the Arab and Korean banks.

38. The plaintiffs claim that condition (c) uses the expression 'presented for negotiation', while condition (f) 'latest date for negotiation'. According to the plaintiffs when the documents are presented for negotiation within 21 days from the date of shipment, then condition (c) is satisfied, but condition (f) provides for the latest date for negotiation and the expression 'negotiation' in condition (f) means acceptance and such acceptance cannot be postponed beyond October 21, 1985. It is not in dispute that the accepting or confirming bank could not accept the documents without proper scrutiny. Detailed arguments were advanced how to interpret the expression 'presentation for negotiation' and 'latest date for negotiation' in conditions (c) and (f). The plaintiffs claimed that the expression 'latest date for negotiation' means latest date for acceptance of documents after scrutiny, while the banks claimed that the 'latest date for negotiation' merely refers to the date of expiry of the credit and before which date the documents must be presented, and it is not necessary that documents must be accepted before the expiry date. The interpretation which could be accepted must be one in accordance with the Uniform Customs and Practice and which is also in accordance with banking and commercial practice throughout the world and which interpretation would give commercial efficacy and consistency and workability to the letter of credit. It would not be proper to give grammatical and technical interpretation to the commercial documents, because the anxiety of the courts should be to ensure that the commercial documents are so interpreted as to enable the international trade to run smoothly. It is undoubtedly true that the banks dealing in commercial documents are required to follow the principle of strict compliance while acting on the credits, but the courts while interpreting the commercial documents must bear in mind the intention of the parties as well as how the commercial world understands the expression used in the documents. The intention of the parties could well be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and the exercise of determining the meaning of the terms used in the documents should be with an object to give commercial efficacy and to sustain the transaction between the parties. A reference can be usefully made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas and Co., : [1961]3SCR1029 , where Mr. Justice Hidayatullah, as he then wa's, after examining the English decisions, approved the principle laid down by the House of Lords in Adamastos Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1959] AC 133 (HL) and the observations of Viscount Simonds to the effect that efforts should always be made to construe commercial agreements broadly and one must not be astute to find defects in them or reject them as meaningless. Bearing this principle in mind, it is necessary to find out the exact import of the expression 'negotiation' in Clause (f) of the letter of credit. The word 'negotiation' as deposed by Mr. Modeira and Mr. Wheble, the expert witnesses examined on behalf of Canara Bank and Swiss Bank respectively, have varied meanings and used in different contexts in the banking transactions. It is undoubtedly true, as urged by Shri Kapadia on behalf of the plaintiffs, that the officers of Canara Bank, like Mangaonkar and Mr. K.P.K. Shenoy and Mr. Oehen of Swiss Bank have deposed that in some circumstances the expression 'negotiation' may include scrutiny of documents and acceptance. The letter of credit issued by Canara Bank is in accordance with the Uniform Customs and Practice and it could not be seriously debated that the letter of credit must stipulate an expiry date for presentation of documents. Indeed the oral evidence indicates that a letter of credit which does not prescribe such an expiry date is unknown. In this background, it is necessary to examine whether the expression 'negotiation' in Clause (f) refers only to the expiry date, and in our judgment, it would be appropriate to hold that condition (f) of the letter of credit refers to the expiry date. The interpretation suggested by the plaintiffs that the expression 'negotiation' should be treated as scrutiny of documents and acceptance would make the credit unworkable. It is not in dispute that it was open for the beneficiary to present the documents on October 21, 1985, and that would have clearly satisfied the requirements of condition (c). Now, condition (c) makes the beneficiary liable to present the documents for negotiation and the duty of the beneficiary comes to an end if (a) the document is presented within 21 days from the date of lading, and (b) such presentation is before the expiry date. To hold that not only the presentation should be before October 21, 1985, but the beneficiary can get advantage of the letter of credit only if the bank scrutinises the documents and accepts the same before October 21, 1985, would amount to imposing additional condition on the beneficiary. The beneficiary is not responsible or cannot control as to how long the bank should take to scrutinise the documents. The evidence led by the parties indicates that the normal period required for scrutinising documents is two or three days in foreign countries while in Asian countries it may require five days and any period beyond five days would be treated as unreasonable. The Uniform Customs and Practice demands that the bank must scrutinise the documents expeditiously and such scrutiny must be with utmost care. The period of scrutiny and the time will depend upon the number of documents presented and staff available with the bank. Oehen deposed that the documents presented were scrutinised for a duration of about seven hours before acceptance and that process could be completed only on October 23, 1985, because the documents were presented at 15.40 hours on October 21, 1985. As the beneficiary was entitled to present the documents any time before expiry of banking hours on October 21, 1985, the interpretation suggested by the plaintiffs would lead to defeat the credit available to the beneficiary. It is impossible to expect the bank to complete the exercise of scrutiny within a couple of minutes after presentation of documents, and, therefore, even though the presentation was perfectly legal and valid, the beneficiary would not be entitled to secure the advantage of the credit for no fault of his. Such an interpretation would make a mockery of the intention of the parties 'to make payment by issuance of a letter of credit. The trial judge realising the impossibility of performing the scrutiny within a few minutes or hours, felt that the beneficiary ought not to present the documents on the last date but should present them long before expiry date or before completion of 21 days from the date of bill of lading so as to leave enough margin for the bank to scrutinise the documents and accept the same. To put such a condition on the beneficiary is to prepone the date of presentation and that is not permissible. As the letter of credit prescribes an expiry date of the credit, it is always open for the beneficiary to present the documents on the last date. On presentation of such documents on the last date, the bank was left with two options (i) to reject it forthwith on the ground that there is not enough time to scrutinise the same ; or (ii) accept it forthwith, and either of the options are totally incorrect. A document cannot be rejected without scrutiny and unless found to be discrepant with the letter of credit. The documents also cannot be accepted without scrutiny and unless found to be in conformity with the letter of credit. It is possible that the bank on scrutiny on the next day after the date of expiry may find that the documents are perfectly in order and still will be deprived from honouring the documents. In our judgment, it is not possible to hold that the beneficiary should present the documents sufficiently in advance to enable the bank to scrutinise the same, if the beneficiary is desirous to seek advantage of the letter of credit. Such interpretation would be in violation of the specific terms of the letter of credit and would cause untold difficulties to the parties. The beneficiary will have to ascertain in every case as to how long the bank would require to scrutinise the documents and it is impossible to leave the parties to such nebulous uncertainties in respect of commercial transactions. In our judgment, the expression 'negotiation' in both clauses (c) and (f) contemplates an action on the part of the beneficiary in presenting the relevant documents for acceptance and does not comprehend any action to be taken by the bank thereafter.

39. Reliance placed in this regard on two decisions in Forestal Mimosa Ltd. v. Oriental Credit Ltd. [1986] 2 All ER 400 (CA) and Discount Records Ltd. v. Barclays Bank Ltd. [1975] 1 All ER 1071, on behalf of the defendants banks is appropriate. Justice Megarry in Discount Records' case [1975] 1 All ER 1071 where the document recited that the credit is available for negotiation or payment until June 7, 1974, observed that the expression 'negotiation' means that June 7, 1974, was the last date on which a draft could be presented for acceptance. It was contended that the observations of Justice Megarry were made while issuing an interim order, and, therefore, much, importance should not be attached. In the Forestal Mimosa Ltd. v. Oriental Credit Ltd. [1986] 2 All ER 400, the Court of Appeal was concerned with the document where the relevant expression was 'the beneficiaries are permitted to negotiate the documents within 30 days from the date of bill of lading'. The Court of Appeal observed that the word 'negotiate' is an unfortunate word, but as it is the plaintiffs who have to negotiate the documents and as under the terms of contract the only thing that they can do with the documents is to hand them over to the confirming bank, and that having been done the conditions must be held to have been fulfilled. The House of Lords upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal by refusing leave to the defendants. In our judgment, taking into consideration the provisions contained in Uniform Customs and Practice regarding letters of credit and the practice followed by several banks in various countries, the conclusion is inescapable that the expression 'negotiation' in condition (f) means only the date of expiry of the credit and the expression 'negotiation' does not demand that the documents presented by the beneficiary must be scrutinised and accepted before the expiry date.

40. The trial judge observed that the letter of credit was issued subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice, but specifically provided that 'except as otherwise expressly stated'. The trial judge felt that condition (f) was inconsistent with the Uniform Customs and Practice, and, therefore, the intention of the parties was to depart from the provisions of the Uniform Customs and Practice and the expression 'negotiation' in Clause (f) was intended to mean that not only documents should be presented before the expiry date, but the documents should be scrutinised and accepted by the confirming bank before that date. To support the conclusion of the trial judge Shri Kapadia submitted that the oral evidence not only of the officers of the Canara Bank and the Swiss Bank but also of Mr. Modeira and Mr. Wheble, the experts examined to establish the banking practice and the understanding of different expressions, indicates that the expression 'negotiation' can mean process of scrutiny and acceptance of documents and draft. Learned counsel also urged that even the Swiss Bank understood at the stage of consideration of grant of interim relief that the expression 'negotiation' means acceptance after scrutiny, and, therefore, claimed that the presentation as well as acceptance was on October 21, 1985. Reference was also made to the grounds at paragraphs (c), (d) and (h) of the appeal memo filed by the Swiss Bank against grant of interim relief by the learned single judge, to urge that the Swiss Bank at an earlier stage was claiming that acceptance was also on October 21, 1985, because of the understanding that the expression 'negotiation' includes acceptance. Reference was also made to the brochure issued by the Swiss Bank and which was marked as exhibit 'AAW'. The brochure sets out a 'glossary of technical terms' and the expression 'negotiation' has been defined as 'action' by which the advising bank buys the documents. See pages 38/39. Turning to page 38/39, the brochure sets out what the bank does upon receipt of the documents, and sets out that it is open for the bank to make a provisional payment on the usual reserve and on condition that if the documents are not accepted the bank can demand repayment of the credit. Shri Kapadia also referred to exhibit 'M-2', the telex dated November 18, 1985. The telex was sent by the Swiss Bank to the Canara Bank to reject the objection about the discrepancies of the documents with the letter of credit and the words used are 'your objection not acceptable considering the long time lapsed since negotiation October 23, 1985'. It was contended that the Swiss Bank also felt that negotiation means scrutiny and acceptance of documents and in that context the expression 'negotiation' is referred to in the telex. From this material it was contended that the Swiss Bank all along understood that the expression 'negotiation' means not only presentation but scrutiny and acceptance of documents. It is not possible to accede to the submission of learned counsel for the reasons indicated hereinabove. It would not be appropriate to refer to the expression used in the telex when the parties were not at issue as to what exactly is the connotation of the expression 'negotiation'. As mentioned hereinabove the expression 'negotiation' is used in various senses and connotes several meanings. It is, therefore, safer to interpret the expression with reference to the object which was to be achieved by issuance of the letter of credit. The construction which would make the document workable and would advance the object the parties intended should always be preferred instead of the strict construction which would defeat not only the object but would raise several complications in reference to commercial transactions in which international banks are involved. It is not appropriate to interpret the word with reference to the facts of a particular case because the wording of conditions (c) and (f) is used by a large number of banks in every letter of credit and the interpretation canvassed by the plaintiffs and accepted by the trial judge would defeat the object of issuing the letter of credit and would put the beneficiary in jeopardy. We specifically enquired from Shri Kapadia as to how the interpretation suggested by the defendants would cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs, and learned counsel had no effective answer save and except claiming that whether prejudice or not the strict interpretation suggested by the plaintiffs must be accepted. In the present case, the beneficiary presented the documents on October 21, 1985, and the beneficiary had carried out his duties strictly in terms of the letter of credit. The issuing bank--the Canara Bank--had no objection whatsoever to the acceptance of the documents on October 23, 1985, and that acceptance does not suffer from any infirmity. Even the plaintiffs, at whose behest the letter of credit was issued, could not have complained in case the goods had reached the Bombay Port. The acceptance of the interpretation of the plaintiffs would destroy the entire transaction and for no fault of the seller and the buyer the transaction would fall through. This was not contemplated by any of the parties, and, therefore, it is impossible to accept the claim that the Swiss Bank ought to have rejected the documents as the process of scrutiny and acceptance was not completed on October 21, 1985. In our judgment, the trial judge was in error in holding that condition (f) of the letter of credit was a departure from the general rule provided under the Uniform Customs and Practice. Condition (f) was in accordance with Article 46(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice. The finding, therefore, is that the Swiss Bank was not required to scrutinise and accept the documents on October 21, 1985, itself and the scrutiny and acceptance thereof on October 23, 1985, was perfectly in accordance with the terms of the letter of credit.

41. The next question for determination is whether the documents presented by Credit Bank on behalf of original defendant No. 4 were discrepant in accordance with the terms and conditions required by the letter of credit and, therefore, the Swiss Bank was duty bound to reject the same The discrepancies alleged by the plaintiffs are set out in paragraph 9 of the plaint and the discrepancies are eight in number. There is one more discrepancy referred to in paragraph 7 after the plaint was amended, but the said discrepancy was given up by the plaintiffs at the trial. Out of the eight discrepancies set out in paragraph 9 of the plaint, discrepancies at serial Nos. 2, 4 and 8 were given up. Shri Kapadia made it clear during arguments that the plaintiffs are not relying upon discrepancies which were given up before the trial court. The first discrepancy was in respect of presentation and negotiation of documents later than 21 days from the date of bill of lading. In respect of this discrepancy it was claimed that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985, and that was beyond 21 days as the 21st day had fallen on October 20, 1985. The discrepancy was not persisted with in view of the fact that October 20, 1985, was a Sunday and a bank holiday and consequently it was permissible to present the documents on October 21, 1985. As regards the contention that the documents ought to have been scrutinised and accepted on October 21, 1985, the contention has already been examined earlier and rejected. That leaves for consideration discrepancies Nos. 5, 5, 6 and 7. Out of these discrepancies, the trial judge accepted only the discrepancy at serial No. 3 and the grievance of the appellants in respect of acceptance of this discrepancy will be examined later.

42. It would be convenient to examine the grievance of the plaintiffs in respect of discrepancies at serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in paragraph 9 of the plaint as the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of these discrepancies was not accepted by the trial court, but the grievance was reiterated during arguments by Shri Kapadia. Before examining these discrepancies it would be appropriate to refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court which deal with the principle of the tests to be applied for determination of discrepancies. Though several other decisions were cited, it is not necessary to refer to these decisions as the same were considered by the Supreme Court in the two decisions. The first decision is in Tarapore and Co. v. V/o Tractoroexport, Moscow : [1969]2SCR920 . The Supreme Court sounded a warning that an irrevocable letter of credit has a definite implication and it is a mechanism of great importance in international trade and any interference with that mechanism is bound to have serious repercussions on the international trade, and, therefore, unless exceptional circumstances exist, the court should not interfere with that mechanism. In the decision in United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India : [1981]3SCR300 , it was observed that the bank issuing or confirming a letter of credit is not concerned with the underlying contract between the buyer and seller and the duties of the bank are created under the letter of credit. The Supreme Court referred with approval to a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, volume 5, para 141, at page 106, and which reads as under :

' Unless documents tendered under a credit are in accordance with those for Which the credit calls and which are embodied in the promise of the paying or negotiating banker, the beneficiary cannot claim against the paying banker, and it is the paying banker's duty to refuse payment. The documents must be those called for, and not documents which are almost the same or which will do just as well. The banker is not called upon to know or interpret trade customs and terms. It has been held that where a mandate is ambiguous and a paying banker acts in a reasonable way in pursuance of it, he may be protected. But this general rule cannot be stretched so far as to protect a banker who pays against documents describing goods in terms which are similar to, but not exactly the same as those stipulated in the credit. The description of the goods in the relative bill of lading must be the same as the description in the letter of credit, that is, the goods themselves must in each case be described in identical terms, even though the goods differently described in the two documents are, in fact, the same. It is the description of the goods that is all important. The reason for this requirement is stated in Daws' Law Relating to Commercial Letters of Credit, 2nd edition, page 76 :

It is not only the buyer who faces the risk of dishonesty or sharp practice on the part of the seller. For, in many instances, the banker looks to the goods for reimbursement of the whole or part of the amount he pays under the letter of credit. It is equally in his interest to ensure that such documents are called for by the letter of credit as will result in goods of the contract description being ultimately delivered. The buyer is not compelled to enter into the sales contract nor is the banker compelled to issue the letter of credit. If either of these contracts is entered into then it is for the buyer and the banker respectively to safeguard themselves by the terms of the contract. Otherwise, they must be prepared to bear any ensuing loss.But the liability thus imposed on the issuing banker carries with it a corresponding right that the seller shall, on his part, comply with the terms of the letter of credit and the seller's obligations have been construed as strictly as those of the banker. We have already referred to the statement of law in Halsbury's Laws of England, which found a place in Paget's Law of Banking, 8th edition, at page 648, and we may at the risk of repetition reproduce the same, to the effect :Unless documents tendered under a credit are in accordance with those for which the credit calls and which are embodied in the promise of the intermediary or issuing banker, the beneficiary cannot claim against him ; and it is the banker's duty to refuse payment. The documents must be those called for and not documents which are almost the same or which seem to do just as well.'

43. The discrepancy referred to at serial No. 5 in paragraph 9 of the plaint is with regard to 'combined fumigation and phytosanitary certificate'. The complaint made by the plaintiffs was that the certificate refers to the fumigation done by the firm and the name of the firm has not been mentioned. It was claimed that the fumigation should be done by a particular agency and then only the certificate can be valid. There is absolutely no merit in this contention as rightly held by the trial judge. The letter of credit merely calls for combined certificate of phytosanitary and fumigation. The certificate tendered before the Swiss Bank was the one issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Affairs in Turkey and is issued in a printed standard form. The certificate reflects that both phytosanitary as well as fumigation was carried out. The letter of credit does not require fumigation to be carried out by any particular authorised institution or agency, and consequently the grievance that the name of the agency which carried out the fumigation was not mentioned is wholly without any merit. The discrepancy at serial No. 6 in paragraph 9 of the plaint is that the bills of lading are not signed by the approved agents or the owners or master of the vessel as required by the letter of credit. The complaint was that the original letter of credit required bills of lading of shipping companies, but the credit was amended and the bill of lading was permitted to be signed by the authorised shipping agent/ owner of vessel/master of ship. The certificate produced before the Swiss Bank was issued by Atake as the authorised shipping company's agents. In the second certificate Atake was described as 'authorised shipping company's agents of the owners' and in the third certificate as 'authorised agents of the owners'. The plaintiffs claimed that the requirement of the letter of credit is not satisfied. There is no merit in the contention. Shamlal, a partner of the plaintiffs, in the witness box deposed that what is meant by discrepancy at serial No. 6 is that the bills of lading are not signed by the approved agents and the bills of lading only stated 'agents' when what was required was 'approved agents'. The plaintiffs tried to confuse the issue by claiming that Atake were agents and not necessarily approved agents. The trial judge very rightly turned down the contention by observing that the person who is an agent is necessarily an approved agent. The bills of lading are issued on a printed form and are not only signed by the agents but also by the master of the ship. We are unable to find any discrepancy which warranted Swiss Bank to reject the documents. The discrepancy set out at serial No. 7 in paragraph 9 of the plaint is that the letter of credit demanded that the bills of lading should be marked 'freight' and 'freight prepaid', whereas contradictory notations regarding payment of freight are noticed on the bills of lading. Curiously enough Shamlal while in the witness box did not even refer to this discrepancy. A perusal of the bills of lading (exhibits 'G-18 to G-21') clearly establishes that the requirement of 'freight prepaid' was entirely complied with. At the top of the bills there is an endorsement 'freight prepaid'. Shri Kapadia submitted that at the bottom of the first page of the bill of lading there is a column in which the words printed are 'freight payable at' and what is typed in the bill is 'Obernau/Prepaid'. Learned counsel urged that this endorsement does not establish that the freight was prepaid. The contention is only required to be stated to be rejected. The endorsement makes it extremely clear that freight was payable at Obernau, which is possibly the place of payment and the word 'prepaid' is in confirmity with the endorsement on the top that freight was prepaid. The trial judge very rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of this discrepancy, by reference to article 3 Kb) of the Uniform Customs and Practice, which, inter alia, provides that if the transport documents indicate that freight has been paid or prepaid, then the banks will accept the documents on which words clearly indicating prepayment of freight appear.

44. The only discrepancy which appealed to the trial judge was the discrepancy referred to at serial No. 3 in paragraph 9 of the plaint. The complaint was that the description in the invoice differs from that given in the SGS certificate of survey, quality, weight and packing. A two-fold contention was raised before the trial court. The first is that out of the three certificates issued by SGS in respect of the three different consignments an endorsement is made only on one that the goods are 'free from live and dead insects'. The endorsement does not appear on all the three certificates but only on one certificate and the grievance was that any reasonable banker on perusing the three certificates would have noticed the discrepancy. The trial judge did not find any merit in the complaint as the letter of credit does not require the certificate to certify that the goods are free from live and dead insects, and therefore, no fault could be found if such endorsement is not noticed on the two certificates out of the three. The fact that such an endorsement is made in one certificate does not in any manner deviate from the requirement of the letter of credit. The principal grievance urged before the trial court, and which found favour, was that the certificate contained description of the consignment, that is chick peas and additional words 'crop 1985'. The grievance was that the additional words in relation to the description of the goods may change the complexion of the goods to the extent that they may not even refer to the same goods. Article 41(c) of the Uniform Customs and Practice provides that the description of the goods in the commercial invoice must correspond with the description in the credit and in all other documents the goods may be described in general terms not inconsistent with the description of the goods in the credit. It is not in dispute that the goods described in the invoice are in accordance with the letter of credit and the same description is also set out in the SGS certificates. The complaint is that the certificates while setting out the description used the additional words 'crop 1985'. It is not in dispute that the consignment loaded on the vessel was chick peas and the words 'crop 1985' refer to the crop Of chick peas grown in the year 1985. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the addition of words 'crop 1985' in the description of the goods on the certificate is a discrepancy which would warrant rejection of the documents. In our judgment, it is impossible to accept the claim of the plaintiffs that in the first instance there is a discrepancy and secondly the discrepancy is fatal to the acceptance of the documents. One thing which is immediately required to be stated is that the confirmation note issued by the broker of the suppliers and on the strength of which the letter of credit was issued by the Canara Bank at the behest of the plaintiffs in clear terms describes the goods with the words 'crop 1985'. It is true that the said words do not find place in the letter of credit and consequently in the invoice. The words added while describing the goods in the SGS certificate do not, in our judgment, deviate from the requirement of the letter of credit nor create a discrepancy which would entitle the bank to reject the documents. It is not possible to accede to the submission that the use of the words 'crop 1985' may change the complexion of the goods to the extent that they may not even refer to the same goods. It is not possible for the accepting bank to be familiar with the various sorts of goods which are traded with reference to the letter of credit. What the bank is required to ascertain is whether the description of the goods in the documents accompanying the invoice is inconsistent with the description of the goods in the credit. Commercial invoices and all other documents which describe the goods cannot be equated and in the case of commercial invoices the goods must exactly correspond with the description of the credit, but the same strict rule is not required in respect of other documents. In respect of other documents the banks have to ensure that the goods described are not inconsistent with the description in the credit. Mere addition of some words should not necessarily lead the bank to reject the documents and defeat the commercial transactions. The additional description cannot be considered to be discrepant in each and every case. The trial judge felt that in certain cases like sale of car of a particular year's model or tennis racket of a particular brand, it may make a difference if additional words are inserted in the accompanying documents. It is not necessary to imagine cases where the problems may arise because on the facts of the present case there cannot be two opinions that the addition of the words 'crop 1985' would not alter the description of the goods or create even a suspicion in the mind of any reasonable person that the goods described in the invoices and in the certificate are not the same. Reference was made to the decision in Gian Singh and Co. Ltd. v. Banque de Vlndochine [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1, where the Privy Council held that the additions of the words were merely additionally descriptive and the words should be understood as words of description only which did not in any way affect the validity of the certificate. The I.C.C. Banking Commission considered the question of additional information furnished in the document accompanying the invoices and observed that the additional words describing the consignment which did not derogate from the description in the credit can be well accepted. A more complete description in the invoice is not necessarily an irregularity and the banks should not act like robots but use their judgment or common sense and in case the additional information is not inconsistent with the description of the credit, then the documents should not be rejected. What is obvious, in our judgment, is that if the documents produced bear a link to each other, then it is not necessary that the accompanying documents should be exactly consistent in their wording of the description of the goods in the commercial invoices. The reliance on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Banque de Vlndochine v. J.H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd. [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 228, in this respect is appropriate. Shri Kapadia placed strong reliance upon the decision in Bank Melli Iran v. Barclays Bank [1951] 2 KB 367 to urge that the bank must accept documents as called for by the credit and there is no room for documents which are almost as good. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition, but the question as to whether the additional words in the documents accompanying the invoice lead to the discrepancy would depend upon the facts of each case and there cannot be a general rule that as soon as some additional words are noticed in one of the accompanying documents, then the bank should straightaway proceed to reject the documents. In our judgment, the proper approach would be that if the description of the goods in the accompanying document is in accordance with the letter of credit, but also indicates some additional words, then the bank should ascertain whether such additional words are likely to change the nature of the goods described in the invoice or the goods may be different from those described in the invoice. In case the bank finds that the goods are not different, then the bank need not reject the documents merely because of some additional words. In our judgment, the trial judge was not right in holding that by the addition of the words 'crop 1985' in the SGS certificate the bank should have rejected the documents and their failure to do so amounts to gross negligence.

45. The trial judge with reference to the discrepancy in reference to amended paragraph 12 of the plaint, observed that the phytosanitary certificate seems to have been tampered with and that should have put the Swiss Bank on guard. The trial judge felt that the certificate was tampered with in view of copies of the certificate produced by the plaintiffs' witness, Mr. Peter Lowe, at the trial. Copies are marked as exhibit 'AO'. The trial judge felt that there are certain corrections in the certificate in respect of the date of issuance and that indicates that the certificates were not in order and should not have been accepted by the bank at its face value without further enquiry. The appellants complained, and in our judgment with considerable merit, that the alleged discrepancy or the tampering with the certificate was not even pleaded and it is not permissible for the plaintiffs to raise fresh contentions by reference to some documents which are tendered during the trial. The contention is correct and deserves acceptance. Though the trial judge has not recorded a clear-cut finding that the phytosanitary certificate was tampered with, he has nevertheless expressed doubt and observed that such doubt should have put the bank on guard not to accept the documents. We do not share the view of the learned judge and in our judgment, the Swiss Bank could not be faulted for accepting the documents. None of the discrepancies pleaded by the plaintiffs, in our judgment, are real discrepancies and consequently the plaintiffs could not claim that the action of the Swiss Bank in accepting the documents was invalid.

46. Apart from the discrepancies raised by the plaintiffs, the trial judge proceeded to find out two more discrepancies in the documents. The trial judge observed that even though the plaintiffs have not pleaded such a discrepancy, it is open for the court on its own to discover the discrepancies not noticed by any party. The appellants complained, and with justification, that such an exercise in respect of commercial documents is not proper. It is not the function of the court to imagine the discrepancies to reach the conclusion that the acceptance of the commercial documents was improper, and more so when neither the plaintiffs who were complaining against the acceptance, nor the issuing bank had at any time suggested that the documents should have been rejected on the discrepancies noted by the court. It is undoubtedly true that the court has power to discover the discrepancies, but it is dangerous to proceed to rest the judgment on such discoveries because such discoveries deprive the parties of an opportunity to meet the case. The first discrepancy discovered by the trial judge was that the beneficiary certificate and certificate of origin were inconsistent. The letter of credit demanded that the seller was to forward one set of non-negotiable documents to the plaintiffs along with a certificate to that effect. In pursuance of this condition, the seller submitted certificates, exhibit 'G-7'. The trial judge felt that a perusal of the certificate indicates that the documents were airmailed to the plaintiffs by October 7, 1985 as the certificate bears that date. The trial judge held that if the certificate of origin (exhibit 'G-15') is perused, it is established that the certificate of origin was issued on October 10, 1985, and consequently the beneficiary certificate could not have been airmailed on October 7, 1985. The reason for concluding that the certificate of origin (exhibit 'G-15') is dated October 10, 1985, is on the basis of a rubber stamp, which reads '10 Ekim 1985'. On perusal of the original certificate we find that the reasoning of the learned judge to reach the conclusion that the certificate of origin was issued on October 10, 1985, is not correct. The certificates of origin have got printed clauses and the clause at the bottom of the certificate refers to place and date of issue. Below this clause is the typed word 'Gaziantap' which is a place of issuance and the date typed is 'October 4, 1985'. Adjoining the clause is a rubber stamp of the issuing authority and which is duly signed by an officer. Thereafter, there is a fresh rubber stamp which is affixed on the original rubber stamp and which reads as '10 Ekim 1985'. Nobody knew what the word 'Ekim' connotes, but it was only during the course of the trial that the plaintiff's witness, Cakurova, who is of Turkish origin deposed that the word 'Ekim' means 'October'. It is not in dispute that the language of the letter of credit is English and the documents furnished to Swiss Bank are either in English or translated into English. The witnesses examined at the trial on behalf of the banks deposed that the banks examined only the documents which are in English or the translation of the documents in English. It is impossible for any banker to suspect a document merely because a rubber stamp with word 'Ekim' is put on the certificate of origin. On perusal of the original certificate of origin, we have grave doubts as to when the rubber stamp of '10 Ekim 1985' was put. As mentioned hereinabove, it is clear that the certificate was prepared on October 4, 1985, and the authority put the rubber stamp with the signature of the officer. Now, subsequently, the rubber stamp of '10 Ekim 1985' was placed on the earlier rubber stamp is not known. In these circumstances we are unable to agree with the trial judge that in the first instance this was a discrepancy and secondly of such a nature that the bank should have rejected all the documents.

47. The second discrepancy discovered by the trial judge is that the certificates issued by the Swiss Bank to the effect that the documents were presented for negotiation on October 21, 1985, do not specifically recite that October 20, 1985, was Sunday, and, therefore, presentation on October 21, 1985, was valid. We are afraid we cannot share the view of the learned judge. The fact that the Swiss Bank did not mention in the certificate that October 20, 1985, was a Sunday, and therefore, the beneficiary could have presented the documents on October 21, 1985, cannot invalidate the presentation. In our judgment, the two discrepancies discovered by the trial judge were not discrepancies at all, and the conclusion that the Swiss Bank was acting in an unprofessional manner was unwarranted.

48. That leaves for consideration one more discrepancy which was raised by the Canara Bank before forwarding documents to the plaintiffs and which was not persisted with, and, therefore, invited the strictures of the trial judge. The documents tendered by the Credit Bank to the Swiss Bank were accepted on October 23, 1985, and the testimony of Franz Oehen discloses, that the documents were airmailed to the Canara Bank by first airmail. The documents were received by the Canara Bank in its Foreign Exchange Department on October 29, 1985. The documents were forwarded by the Foreign Department of Canara Bank to Mandavi Branch on November 14, 1984. On November 15, 1985, Canara Bank addressed telex message, exhibit 'M-l', to the Swiss Bank rejecting the documents on the ground that there is a discrepancy in the SGS certificate. The discrepancy claimed was that the SGS certificate did not describe the merchandise specifications as per item 3 of the letter of credit. Swiss Bank by reply telex informed the Canara Bank that the alleged discrepancy is not accepted for more than one reason. The first reason was that the alleged discrepancy was pleaded long after the documents were received by the Canara Bank and it is not permissible for the issuing bank to refuse the documents after considerable delay as provided by Article 16(d) of the Uniform Customs and Practice. It is not in dispute that the Canara Bank could not have refused to accept the documents after a long delay from the date of receipt of the documents in October, 1985. It is accepted by all parties that the delay of more than 16 days is fatal. The second reason stated by the Swiss Bank is that the claim that the SGS certificate did not describe the merchandise specification as per the letter of credit is not correct.

49. The Swiss Bank claimed that by amendment dated August 23, 1985, exhibit 'D-2', the letter of credit provided that the SGS certificate should set out the relevant specifications as stipulated underneath the description of the merchandise and the relevant packing clause. The Swiss Bank pointed out that the SGS certificates squarely comply with all the requirements of the letter of credit and the specifications demanded were set out. Shri Kapadia submitted that the perusal of the SGS certificate (exhibit 'G-16') indicates that all the specifications required by amendment as regards size, admixture and undersize of the consignment were duly set out, but the complaint of the plaintiffs is that the said specifications were set out at the wrong place in the certificate. We are unable to find any merit in the contention. All the requirements of the specifications are included in the certificate and it is futile to suggest that there is a discrepancy merely because it is not at the exact place as desired by the plaintiffs. The trial judge held that the alleged discrepancy initially raised by the Canara Bank was not a discrepancy at all, The trial judge then went on to examine whether the Swiss Bank and the Canara Bank understood the amendment in the sense as was claimed at the trial. The trial judge then recorded a finding that the Canara Bank was negligent in not scrutinising the documents properly and in not pursuing the discrepancies raised earlier and actively concealing the same from the plaintiffs. The trial judge further held that the Canara Bank claimed during the hearing of the suit that the discrepancy raised was not a material discrepancy and this stand was taken only with a view to cover up the negligence. From this finding the learned judge concluded that both, the Canara Bank and the Swiss bank, have tried to oblige original defendant No. 4. The appellants seriously challenge this observation by pointing out that once the trial judge found that the discrepancy initially raised by the Canara Bank was not a discrepancy, then it was futile to expect that the Canara Bank should have persisted with such discrepancy at the trial. Once the Canara Bank was satisfied that the alleged discrepancy was not a discrepancy, then no fault can be found with the bank for not informing the plaintiffs that the Canara Bank initially was inclined to reject the documents for the alleged discrepancy. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs after being intimated by the Canara Bank about acceptance of the documents raised a number of Contentions to reject the documents, but not the one which Canara Bank had initially raised. In our judgment, the conclusion of the trial judge that the Swiss Bank and the Canara Bank acted negligently in accepting the documents and that too to oblige original defendant No. 4 is erroneous and cannot be sustained on the face of the evidence brought on record at the trial,

50 The next question which requires determination is whether fraud was committed by original defendant No. 4 in antedating the bills of lading, and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to reject the documents. Paragraph 15 of the plaint recites that in or about the last week of January, 1986, the plaintiffs were trying to settle the matter with the sellers and the ship owners without knowing the fraud committed by original defendant No. 4. It is, thereafter, averred that the plaintiffs discovered the fraud on the part of original defendant No. 4 and Swiss Bank only when Shamlal Kishnani, partner of the plaintiffs, went abroad and returned on March 11, 1986. The plaintiffs claimed that Shamlal while in London obtained in the first week of February, 1986, a certificate dated December 27, 1985, and from the said certificate it was revealed that the bills of lading were antedated and were secured by original defendant No. 4 with the object of practising fraud upon the plaintiffs and encashing the letter of credit without complying with contractual obligations. The plaintiffs further claimed that there was complicity between Swiss Bank and original defendant No. 4, and, therefore, Swiss Bank is also a party to the fraud. Original defendant No. 4 was not served and was deleted from the array of defendants at the behest of the plaintiffs, with the result that the party against whom fraud was alleged is not before the court. Swiss Bank in the written statement denied that any fraud was committed while securing bills of lading, and in the alternate submitted that the Swiss Bank was not aware at the lime of acceptance of the documents that the bills of lading were not genuine. The plaintiffs in support of their case examined their two partners, Shamlal and Prithviraj. The plaintiffs also led the evidence of Peter Lowe and Cakurova in support of their claim.

51. Before adverting to the oral evidence, it would be relevant to highlight certain facts. The plaintiffs admitted that the contract in issue for purchase of 2800 metric tons of chick peas was the largest contract entered into by the plaintiffs. Shamlal admitted that Prithviraj was in Turkey and present at Port Mersin, from where the goods were loaded on vessel M.V. Dutchman. Prithviraj in his deposition admitted that he went to Turkey on August 27, 1985, and was there till October 15, 1985. Prithviraj claimed that he had gone to Turkey for export promotion and for ascertaining the possibilities of supplying empty gunny bags. Prithviraj then admitted that he was in Mersin Port for about a month and left Mersin only on October 2, 1985. Prithviraj claimed in examination-in-chief that while in Mersin, he was not aware that the chick peas under the contract were to be transported by M.V. Dutchman. In cross-examination Prithviraj claimed that he knew little of the suit contract though he became aware of the contract when he signed the confirmation notes on August 3, 1985. The witness claimed that he signed it on instructions from Shamlal and was fully conscious that the contract was for a very large amount. The witness then claimed that he could not recollect the original date of shipment under the contract. The witness admitted that Mersin is a port and is a trading centre for chick-peas. Prithviraj stated that during the period he was in Mersin he was in contact with parties interested in selling chick peas. The witness admitted that one Yogesh, who was representing the brokers of original defendant No. 4 and through whose intervention the suit contract was brought about, was also present at Mersin and both Prithviraj and Yogesh were staying in the same hotel. Prithviraj claimed that while in Mersin he made no efforts to ascertain whether the shipment under the suit contract was loaded as per the terms of the contract. Prithviraj had to concede that while in Mersin, Yogesh had made offer for a fresh contract for purchase of chick peas and that was accepted. The witness admitted that the relationship of the plaintiff firm with Triune Produce Brokers is cordial. After making all these statements still Prithviraj claimed that he was not at all aware of the date of shipment of the suit contract, nor had bothered to enquire as to when the consignment was loaded on the vessel at Port Mersin. It is impossible to place any reliance upon the testimony of this witness. The largest contract of the firm was in respect of the suit contract and a partner was staying at Port Mersin for the duration of one month and left on October 2, 1985. In addition to the partner, the representative of the brokers was also residing in the same hotel and Yogesh, the representative, though available in Bombay, was not examined. It is impossible to imagine that the partner who had gone to Mersin will not care to enquire as to when the goods were loaded. In normal circumstances any person would be keen to ensure that the contract for purchase of chick peas goes through and more so, because the plaintiffs claimed that the request made by original defendant No. 4 to extend the period of shipment was turned down. In these circumstances, in our judgment, it is impossible to place any reliance on the statement of Prithviraj that he was not aware about the loading of the consignment at Port Mersin. Shamlal claimed in the witness box that as the goods had not arrived at Bombay Port till the end of November, 1985, he left for Holland and went to Rotterdam. After being aware that some problem had arisen between the ship owners and the charter party, Shamlal proceeded to make enquiry with one Mr, Kronenberg of original defendant No. 4. Shamlal claimed that in the second week of February, 1986, a document was handed over to him by Pravin Mehta, the managing director of South Asian Exports, Singapore. From this document Shamlal felt that the bills were antedated. It is required to be stated at this juncture that the consignment of South Asian Exports, Singapore, was also loaded on vessel M.V. Dutchman. The entire case of fraud set up by the plaintiffs is based on the document secured by Shamlal, and therefore, it is necessary straightaway to examine the document. Before examining this document marked exhibit 'AF', it is necessary to reiterate that the bills of lading clearly indicate that the goods were loaded on vessel M.V. Dutch-man on September 30, 1985, and loading on this date was in accordance with the terms of the letters of credit. Exhibit 'AF' is a letter alleged to have been addressed by the State Railways Enterprise General Management on December 27, 1985. Shri Kapadia very fairly conceded that the document does not indicate to whom the letter is addressed. The letter is addressed in pursuance of a letter dated December 26, 1985, but who had sent this letter is not known from the evidence. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows :

' Please kindly be informed that M. V. Dutchman's port records are as follows. Please be informed accordingly.

(1)Arrival date to port-27-9-1985(2)Berthing date-28-9-1985(3)Start loading date-1-10-1985(4)Sailing date-16-10-1985'.

52. The gravamen of the complaint of the plaintiffs is that this document establishes that the loading commenced on M.V. Dutchman on October 1, 1985, and, therefore, the bills of lading indicating that the consignment was loaded on September 30, 1985, is obviously false and must lead to the conclusion that the bills of lading were antedated to enable original defendant No. 4 to claim that the shipment was carried out in accordance with the terms of the credit. The plaintiffs claimed that if the shipment was on October 1, 1985, then the plaintiffs were not bound to accept the documents and the consignment. It is not possible to place any reliance on this document even assuming that the document was properly admitted in evidence. The trial judge by order dated August 9, 1988, proceeded to admit the document on record to the extent that it purports to be the certificate relating to movement of the ship, and therefore, falls under item 7, Part II of the Schedule to the Commercial Documents Evidence Act No. XXX of 1939. The learned judge observed that the document to the extent that it purports to give the loading date of the ship cannot be admitted in evidence at that stage, The Commercial Documents Evidence Act consists of four sections, and Section 3, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, a court may presume within the meaning of that Act, in relation to documents included in Part II of the Schedule that they have been duly made by or under appropriate authority and the statements contained therein are accurate. Clause 7 of Part II of the Schedule refers to reports and publications issued by the Port Authority showing the movement of vessels and certificates issued by such authority relating to such movement. It is difficult to imagine how a letter addressed by some management can be treated to be a report or publication or certificate issued by such authority. In our judgment, the document tendered by the plaintiffs does not attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act as it is not a document contemplated under item 7 of Part II of the Schedule, and, therefore, could not have been admitted in evidence. But even assuming that the document was duly admitted, we are unable to find any evidentiary value of this document. The plaintiffs have not cared to produce on record letter dated December 26, 1985, addressed to the management. It is not possible to ascertain which party made the enquiry and what was the nature of the enquiry. It is possible that the document, exhibit 'AF', refers to the loading date of the consignment of the party making the enquiry and such loading date need not necessarily be the loading date of other consignments on the vessel. In our judgment, the evidentiary value of this document is nil to determine the alleged fraud in antedating the bills.

53. Shri Kapadia realising the weakness of document, exhibit 'AF', to support the claim of fraud tried to be made out by the plaintiffs, placed strong reliance upon testimony of Mr. Luffi Can Cakurova, an advocate practising at Mersin City, Turkey. The witness deposed that Prithviraj contacted him on August 15, 1988, that is during the conduct of the trial, and advised the witness to collect documents for the purpose of the present suit. The witness claimed that letter dated August 16, 1986, was addressed to Turkish Republic State Railway Administration to seek information in respect of the arrival date of the vessel M.V. Dutchman, the date of the vessel approaching the quay, the starting date of the loading of the vessel and if the vessel made any loading before October 1, 1985. Cukurova deposed that in answer to the query, reply was received on August 18, 1988, and the same was produced at exhibit 'AT'. The reply recites that the loading of the vessel started on October 1, 1985, and before that date the vessel had made no loading in Mersin Port. The witness also produced the ship's manifest and the document produced is a photostat copy of which an English translation was tendered. The photo copy indicates that 30,000 kilograms of chick peas of 26/28 size was loaded on the vessel M, V. Dutchman on October 1, 1985. Relying on these three documents, exhibits 'AS', 'AT' and 'AV', Shri Kapadia submitted that it should be concluded that the bills of lading dated September 30, 1985, were antedated. We are not prepared to accede to the submission of learned counsel. The fact that Cukurova had addressed letter on August 18, 1988, cannot be disputed and so also the reply received by him. The principal question is whether any reliance can be placed on the reply received by Mr. Cukurova and indeed whether the document is admissible in evidence. Shri Kapadia submitted that as the reply is received in answer to the letter written by Cukurova, the plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon the same and the document is admissible. We have grave doubts about the admissibility of the document but as the trial judge has proceeded to exhibit it, we will examine the evidentiary value of the said document. Shri Kapadia submitted that exhibit 'AT' clearly recites that no loading was made on vessel M.V. Dutchman before October 1, 1985, and the loading started only on October 1, 1985. We are not prepared to attach any importance to this reply because ire the first instance it is not clear from what source the information was gathered by the authority writing the letter. The reply does not set out that the information was based upon entries in the register maintained in the ordinary course of business. It is possible that the reply was sent by some officer on the basis of his memory or on the information gathered from some other source. Such an information cannot be treated as of such evidentiary value as to establish fraud alleged by the plaintiffs. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever on record to indicate whether the authority forwarding the reply is a public authority or a private management. Thirdly, no effort whatsoever is made to produce any person connected with the authority which addressed the reply. Fourthly, the document was tendered, without any prior disclosure or without any prior notice to the banks, during the oral evidence of Cukurova, with the result that the banks could not ascertain the genuineness or correctness of the information contained therein. Shri Kapadia very fairly submitted that it is not possible to claim that the reply received is a public document and which can go in evidence as a matter of course. The document is secured by Cukurova during the pendency of the suit at the behest of Prithviraj and in these circumstances we are not prepared to attach any evidentiary value to the reply, exhibit 'AT', received by Cukurova. Shri Kapadia then submitted that the photostat copy of the ship's manifest establishes that certain quantity of chick peas of size 26/28 was loaded on the vessel on October 1, 1985. The learned counsel urged that this is a part of the consignment of the plaintiffs, but it is not possible to accept the claim. The consignments loaded on M.V. Dutchman were not exclusively those of the plaintiffs but several consignments of other parties were loaded on the vessel. It is possible that the consignment, to which the ship's manifest exhibit 'AV' makes reference, is the consignment booked by another party. The evidence does indicate that South Asian Exports, Singapore, had also their consignment on the said vessel in addition to some consignment which was to reach a port in China. In the absence of any evidence from the shipping agency or the agents of the charter party or the brokers of original defendant No. 4 and who was stationed in Bombay, it is impossible to rely upon the documents produced by Cukurova to reach a conclusion that the bills of lading tendered by original defendant No. 4 to the Swiss Bank were fraudulent. Shri Kapadia submitted that the letter of credit by amendment had provided that the consignment to be loaded on the ship should be marked with the code word 'Hira Moti' and the ship's manifest exhibit 'AV' indicates the word 'HM', and, therefore, it must be inferred that the word 'HM' means 'Hira Moti' and the consignment referred to in the shipment exhibit 'AV' is one for the benefit of the plaintiffs, and in accordance with the letter of credit. It is impossible to draw any such inference and more so, when the court is called upon to decide a serious claim of fraud in antedating the bills. One more circumstance referred to by Shri Kapadia is the claim of Shamlal that he had received a copy of the charter party from Mr. Kronenberg by the end of January, 1986, and this copy indicates by clause 38 that the owners had agreed to issuing predated bills of lading 'September 30, 1985' unless otherwise required for which the charterer has to inform the owners in due time. It was contended that clause 38 clearly establishes that the bills of lading could have been predated. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. The alleged copy is not authenticated copy and the plaintiffs made no efforts whatsoever to produce the certified copy of the original charter party agreement or examine any witness to indicate that such a clause existed in the original agreement. It is impossible to even imagine as to how any charter party agreement can provide that bills of lading can be antedated.

54. There is one more aspect which cannot be overlooked. In addition to the bills of lading original defendant No. 4 had tendered several other documents before the Swiss Bank and the contents of those documents supports the assertion that the goods were loaded on the vessel on September 30, 1985. The bills of lading were endorsed by the Turkish Bank and stamped by that bank on September 30, 1985. Secondly, the SGS certificate is not only dated September 30, 1985, but certifies that the goods were inspected at the time of loading. Thirdly, the phytosanitary certificate was also issued prior to September 30, 1985. Fourthly, the marine insurance policy was issued on September 30, 1985, and the issuance of the draft after loading and issuance of bills of lading. To accept the claim of the plaintiffs that original defendant No. 4 had played a fraud in securing antedated bills of lading, it will have to be held that the shipping company's agents Atake who issued the bills of lading, the insurers who issued the marine insurance policies, the Turkish Bank Iktisat Bank who endorsed the bills of lading, the SGS organisation which is a reputed organisation who issued the certificate, the officers of the Ministry of Agriculture of Turkey who issued the phytosanitary and fumigation certificates, were all parties to the fraud alleged to have been perpetuated by original defendant No. 4. In our judgment, it is almost impossible even to conceive that 'all these authorities had interest in original defendant No. 4 to prepare false records only with a view to ensure that the bills of lading reflect the date of September 30, 1985, to suit the terms and conditions of letters of credit. In this connection, it is also necessary to note that though the plaintiffs denied it, the evidence unmistakably indicates that the plaintiffs had granted extension up to November 15, 1985, for shipment of the goods. What was not extended was merely the letters of credit and in view of the agreement between the plaintiffs and original defendant No. 4 it was easy to obtain extension of the letters of credit. The claim of the plaintiffs in these circumstances that the bills were antedated and thereby original defendant No. 4 was guilty of fraud cannot be accepted.

55. The trial judge held that the plaintiffs established the fraud as the bills of lading were antedated, but as the plaintiffs were aware right from the beginning that goods were not loaded on September 30, 1985, but on subsequent date, it is not permissible for the plaintiffs to plead fraud and avoid the transaction. The trial judge held that Prithviraj was in Mersin at the relevant time and it is unbelievable that Prithviraj would not have made any enquiries. The trial judge further held that the date of shipment was extended up to October 15, 1985, and that was done by the plaintiffs' partner Omprakash Hemrajani. The trial judge held that the claim of Shamlal that Omprakash had signed document extending the period of shipment by mistake could not be accepted. The trial judge then observed that the letters of credit were not amended, and, therefore, it is possible that there may be a mistake in extending the date of shipment. While making this observation the learned judge overlooked one important aspect of the matter, and that is, the plaintiffs registered the contract with NAFED (National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited), which is a canalising agency. It is not in dispute that the import of chick peas is a canalised item and the contracts are required to be registered with NAFED. The guidelines (exhibit '30') issued by NAFED provide that the contracts can be registered provided they are still valid and operative. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs proceeded to register the contract with NAFED after extending the date of shipment up to October 15, 1985. The fact that the application for registration was made after September 30, 1985, clearly establishes that the date of shipment was extended by the plaintiffs up to October 15, 1985. This fact is relevant only to ascertain whether original defendant No. 4 had any occasion to play fraud by antedating the bills of lading. The trial judge held that the conduct of the plaintiffs in not serving original defendant No. 4, and thereby inviting the court to record a finding on the issue of fraud in the absence of the party, who is guilty of fraud, has made it impossible to come to a finding of fraud. The trial judge felt that as original defendant No. 4 was not a party to the suit, any finding on the issue of fraud would not be binding on that defendant and in the proceedings instituted by original defendant No. 4 against the plaintiffs, the court may record a contrary finding. In these circumstances, the trial judge held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief on the ground of fraud. After recording this finding, the trial judge proceeded to observe that the fraud alleged is not a normal one and though it is not alleged that the Swiss Bank was party to the fraud of antedating the bills of lading, still it is necessary to ascertain whether the Swiss Bank knowingly assisted original defendant No. 4. The trial judge realised that the plaintiffs had not even averred in the plaint that the Swiss Bank had colluded with original defendant No. 4 in perpetuating the fraud, but observed that in the peculiar facts of the case when the facts necessary to establish the fraud are within the exclusive knowledge of the Swiss Bank, then such facts can be established only during evidence. We are afraid, we cannot share the view of the learned judge. We will proceed to examine hereafter why the learned judge held that the Swiss Bank was aware of the fraud and colluded with original defendant No. 4, and whether the observations in that respect are accurate.

56. Once it is found that the plaintiffs had fated to establish that the bills of lading were antedated, then the question of fraud being played by original defendant No. 4 and the Swiss Bank colluding to favour defendant No. 4 loses all its merit. We are examining the observations made in that respect by the learned judge only with a view to ascertain whether the trial judge was justified in finding fault with the banks.

57. It is not the case of the plaintiffs, nor the finding of the trial judge that the Swiss Bank was aware that the bills of lading were antedated at the time of presentation of the documents. The learned judge proceeded to draw the inference of collusion between original defendant No. 4 and the Swiss Bank from some circumstances. The first circumstance relied upon by the trial judge is that the Swiss Bank did not any out proper scrutiny and failed to notice the discrepancy in documents produced along with the commercial documents. The trial judge felt that the Swiss Bank should have realised that the phytosanitary certificates, exhibits 'G-17, 'G-37' and 'G-49', had corrections and the corrections were on crucial aspects and should have put the Swiss Bank on guard that there was something amiss. The original certificate indicates that it was certified that the consignment was thoroughly examined on September 28, 1985. The date initially typed was crossed out and the date 'September 28, 1985' . was typed. This correction at one place in each of the certificates was duly 'stamped and signed to indicate that the correction was authorised and genuine. The date 'September 28, 1985' also appears at the foot of the certificate and where the officer had put the rubber stamp and signature in all the three certificates. The suspicion of the learned judge aroused in view of the carbon copies, exhibits 'AO-1', 'AO-2' and 'AO-3', produced by the plaintiffs' witness Peter Lowe. The witness claimed that on instructions of the plaintiffs' partner forwarded through Capt. Mukundan, a colleague of the witness, enquiries were made with the manager of Caton Maritime Bureau. After enquiries the three carbon copies of the phytosanitary certificates secured by original defendant No. 4 were obtained. The witness claimed that the carbon copies indicated that originally the date typed was October 8, 1985, and which was subsequently struck off and the fresh date of September 28, 1985, was substituted. The trial judge felt that a close look at the original certificate does indicate that the earlier date typed which was struck off was some time in October, 1985. We are afraid the inference drawn by the trial judge that the phytosanitary certificates were tampered with is entirely erroneous. The reliance on the carbon copies is wholly inappropriate. The copies which are claimed to be carbon copies do not tally with the original certificates in respect of other contents. The carbon copy, exhibit 'AO-1', is alleged to be copy of original certificate bearing No. 7039.2, exhibit 'G-17'. The original is duly signed by the officer at the place of signature and date typed is September 28, 1985. The carbon copy, exhibit 'AO-1', does not show this date at all. The date of the fumigation or disinfections treatment shown in the original certificate is September 25, 1985, while in exhibit 'AO-1' it is September 23, 1985. It is obvious that the claim made by Peter Lowe that exhibits 'AO4' to 'AO-3' are carbon copies is totally false and a mere perusal is enough to warrant a conclusion that false copies are tried to be introduced with a view to create a suspicion that the original certificates were tampered with.

58. The second circumstance relied upon by the trial judge is the suspicious circumstances surrounding the payment made by the Swiss Bank to the Credit Bank under draft exhibit 'H'. The draft was accepted by the Swiss Bank on September 23, 1985, and the amount covered by the draft was payable on January 28, 1986, in accordance with the terms of the letter of credit. The letter of credit provided that the amount should be paid 120 days after the date of shipment. It is not in dispute that the amount was payable on January 28, 1986. The Credit Bank addressed letter, exhibit '24', on January 21, 1986, demanding payment due on January 28, 1986. The Swiss Bank issued credit advice, exhibit '25', on January . 24, 1986. Exhibit '26' is the copy of the telex from the Swiss Bank to the counter part in New York to credit the amount in favour of the Credit Bank, and this telex is dated January 27, 1986. The debit advice from New York, exhibit '27', was received. These documents clearly establish that the payment was made by the Swiss Bank to the Credit Bank as per the draft, exhibit 'H', which was accepted on tender of documents. The trial judge felt that as the goods had not been received at Bombay Port and as Canara Bank at one stage had raised discrepancy complaining about acceptance of documents and the plaintiffs had specifically rejected the documents in November, 1985, the Swiss Bank was not justified in making payment in January, 1986, and the action of the Swiss Bank is very suspicious. We are unable to find any suspicion about the manner of payment by the Swiss Bank. It must be remembered that the international credits and international transactions proceed on the strength of documents. Once the documents are accepted by Swiss Bank and the draft is also accepted, then the liability of the Swiss Bank to the beneficiary of letter of credit becomes complete and the Swiss Bank could not havedeclined to make payment unless fraud was noticed and the Swiss Bank was prima facie satisfied of such fraud. There was no complaint of fraud in January, 1986, and, therefore, it is not fair to take into consideration what transpired subsequently or what the plaintiffs felt at a later stage.

59. The next circumstance heavily relied upon by the trial court is the attempt made by the Swiss Bank to secure reimbursement from the Canara Bank in spite of the knowledge of ex parte ad interim injunction passed in the present suit restraining the Canara Bank from reimbursing Swiss Bank. The Swiss Bank had agreed to postpone reimbursement till April 1, 1986, on the promise of the Canara Bank to pay interest for the postponed period. The payment was due to Swiss Bank on April 1, 1986, and the Swiss Bank was entitled to be credited with the amount by making demand with original defendant No. 3-Bankers Trust Company. The suit was instituted on March 24, 1986, and ad interim injunction was secured. The trial judge felt that in spite of the knowledge of grant of ad interim injunction the Swiss Bank proceeded to secure reimbursement and that too even prior to April 1, 1986. This conduct of the Swiss Bank according to the learned judge indicates complicity between the Swiss Bank and original defendant No. 4. This is one of the circumstance which was considered by the trial judge while determining whether to accept the claim of the Swiss Bank that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985. While examining the question as to whether the documents were presented on October 21, 1985, consideration of this aspect was deferred. It is necessary to bear in mind that the Canara Bank at all times was prepared to reimburse the Swiss Bank in accordance with the assurance under the letter of credit. The Swiss Bank prior to institution of the suit and at all stages in the suit, took a consistent stand that to maintain the honesty and reliability in dealings with the banks, Canara Bank is bound to reimburse Swiss Bank. The plaintiffs were fully conscious of this fact and even though the goods had not reached Bombay Port and according to the witness, Shamlal, discrepancies in the documents were found out in November, 1985, and fraud some time in February, 1986, still no action was taken to file any suit against the Canara Bank, but the present suit was instituted only on March 24, 1986, apprehending that the Canara Bank would reimburse Swiss Bank by April 1, 1986. It is the case of Swiss Bank, and we do not find any reason to discard the same, that it is the usual banking practice that the demand for reimbursement in respect of documentary credit is made a couple of days before the due date for payment. Swiss Bank claimed that payment was due on April 1, 1986, and although the bank was conscious of the proceedings instituted in this court, the bank felt that as the trial court had declined to grant any ad interim injunction restraining Swiss Bank from demanding reimbursement, there was no obstacle in securing payment. The Swiss Bank also felt that it is not the practice to grant injunction in respect of international transactions evidenced by documentary credits as held by several decisions of the Supreme Court. The Swiss Bank accordingly sought payment on legal advice and the amount was credited by making book entries by original defendant No. 3. Entries were reversed when the Canara Bank subsequently raised an objection that in view of the injunction granted by this court payment was not permissible. The trial judge felt that the conduct of Swiss Bank in securing payment was suspicious, but we are unable to accept the conclusion of the trial court. It must be borne in mind that once the litigation starts every party tries to protect its interest and in case the Swiss Bank was advised to secure reimbursement a couple of days before April 1, 1986, that action cannot have any reflection on the dealing carried out by the Swiss Bank on April 21, 1985, while accepting documents from the Credit Bank. The knowledge of fraud or collusion cannot be attributed to the Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, with reference to the circumstances which transpired several days thereafter. It is always dangerous to infer fraud and collusion by taking into consideration the events which are far separated from the time when the alleged fraud is committed. In our judgment, the trial judge was not right in holding that the Swiss Bank was guilty of collusion with original defendant No. 4, and, therefore, knowledge of fraud can be attributed to the Swiss Bank.

60. We are not prepared to uphold the finding of the trial judge that Swiss Bank had actively participated in attempting to secure payment to original defendant No. 4 with full knowledge that defendant No. 4 was npt entitled to the same. We are also unable to accept the finding that even if there was no discrepancy in any of the documents and even if the complaint of fraud is not proved, still Swiss Bank is not entitled to claim reimbursement. The finding, in our judgment, is entirely erroneous and cannot be sustained. Swiss Bank is entitled to reimbursement once it is found that the documents were presented on October 21, 1985, and there was no discrepancy in any of the documents so as to warrant rejection. Reimbursement from Canara Bank to Swiss Bank cannot be denied once it is held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish alleged fraud of antedating bills and Swiss Bank was neither aware of the fraud nor was guilty of any collusion with original defendant No. 4.

61. The last point for consideration and which has been seriously pressed by the appellants is whether the plaintiffs had waived the right to complain about alleged fraud and the alleged discrepancies by the consistent conduct from the date of knowledge of the alleged discrepancies or alleged fraud till the date of the suit. In support of the claim that the plaintiffs had waived their rights arising from alleged discrepancies or alleged fraud, reliance is placed by the banks on three circumstances. The first circumstance is that the plaintiffs lodged a claim for the insurance amount with the insurance company on the basis that the title to the consignment vests in the plaintiffs. The second circumstance is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar against the ship-owners specifically claiming that the title to the consignment vests in the plaintiffs. The third circumstance is that the plaintiffs had applied for extension of forward sales contract. The trial judge found that the three circumstances referred to by the banks are quite substantial and normally there could not be any hesitation in concluding that the plaintiffs had waived their right of rejection of the documents. After recording this finding, the trial judge proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs cannot be shut out on this count because the plaintiffs were forced to take action due to the threats of Canara Bank of debiting the account of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs did not have full knowledge of rejection of all the documents by Canara Bank on an earlier occasion, and, therefore, waiver was not intentional and the fact that the documents were not presented by Credit Bank to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, was established only after the evidence, and, therefore, the action taken earlier by the plaintiffs can be ignored. In our judgment, the reasons given by the trial judge for holding against the banks on the issue of waiver are clearly unsustainable. The trial judge proceeded to observe, and Shri Kapadia reiterated the contention, that the waiver cannot be unilateral and there must be a meeting of minds between the party who claims waiver and the party against whom the waiver is claimed. The submission is clearly untenable.

62. Before examining the grounds urged by the banks in support of the plea of waiver, it would be appropriate to refer to three decisions of the Supreme Court. In P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao, : [1975]2SCR32 :

'Abandonment of right is much more than mere waiver, acquiescence or laches. The decision of the High Court in the present case is that the appellant has waived the right to evict the respondent. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage, benefit, claim or privilege which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed. Waiver can also be a voluntary surrender of a right. The doctrine of waiver has been applied in cases where landlords claimed forfeiture of lease or tenancy because of breach of some condition in the contract of tenancy. The doctrine which the courts of law will recognise is a rule of judicial policy that a person will not be allowed to take inconsistent position to gain advantage through the aid of courts. Waiver sometimes partakes of the nature of an election. Waiver is consensual in nature. It implies a meeting of the minds. It is a matter of mutual intention. The doctrine does not depend on misrepresentation. Waiver actually requires two parties, one party waiving and another receiving the benefit of waiver. There can be waiver so intended by one party and so understood by the other. The essential element of waiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right. The voluntary choice is the essence of waiver. There should exist an opportunity for choice between the relinquishment and an enforcement of the right in question. It cannot be held that there has been a waiver of valuable rights where the circumstances show that what was done was involuntary. There can be no waiver of a non-existent right. Similarly, one cannot waive that which is not one's as a right at the time of waiver. Some mistake or misapprehension as to some facts which constitute the underlying assumption without which parties would not have made the contract may be sufficient to justify the court in saying that there was no consent.'

63. Strong reliance was placed by Shri Kapadia on the observations that waiver implies a meeting of minds and is a matter of mutual intention. It was urged that waiver cannot be unilateral. It is not possible to accede to the submission of learned counsel, and the observations of the Supreme Court must be read in their proper perspective. The issue was squarely considered earlier by the Supreme Court in the decision in Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee v. Nilima Rani : [1970]2SCR925 . The Supreme Court observed that in India the general principle with regard to the waiver of contractual obligation is to be found in Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act and under that section it is open to the promisee to dispense with or remit the performance of the promise. Under the Indian law neither consideration nor an agreement would be necessary to constitute waiver and as observed by the Supreme Court earlier in Waman-Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co. : AIR1959SC689 , that waiver is the abandonment of a right which normally everybody is at liberty to waive. Waiver signifies nothing more than an intention not to insist upon the right. In the later decision in Dr. Jiwan Lal v. Brij Mohan Mehra, : [1973]2SCR230 , the Supreme Court observed :

'. . . where a stipulation is for the exclusive benefit of one contracting party and does not create liabilities against him, he can waive it unilaterally. (See also Hawkesley v. Outram [1892] 3 Ch. 359 and Morrell v. Studd and Millington [1913] 2 Ch. 648)'.

64. It is, therefore, obvious that to attract the doctrine of waiver it is not necessary that there should be a meeting of minds or that there must be an agreement or contract between the two parties.

65. The first circumstance strongly relied upon by the banks to indicate that the plaintiffs had waived their right and had accepted the documents in spite of the knowledge of alleged fraud or of alleged discrepancies is demonstrated by the lodgment of the insurance claim. The letter of credit demanded that the consignment should be duly insured by a marine insurance policy. The marine insurance policy, exhibit '6', is dated September 30, 1985, and it is a bearer policy. The policy was presented to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, and the policy was forwarded by Swiss Bank to Canara Bank. The plaintiffs did not disclose in the plaint that on the basis of the insurance policy the claim was lodged with the insurance company some time in the first week of January, 1986. The claim was rejected by the insurance company, and thereafter, correspondence ensued between the plaintiffs' solicitors in London and the solicitors of the insurance company in Holland. Shamlal admitted in his deposition that the claim for the insurance amount was lodged by the company but suggested that the claim was made both by the plaintiffs and the original defendant No. 4. Shamlal was specifically asked in cross-examination to produce documents in respect of lodgment of the claim, but Shamlal in spite of the assurance to do so, ultimately failed to produce any documents. The claim of Shamlal that the insurance claim was lodged on behalf of defendant No. 4 also is not supported by any documents. Indeed all the documents in respect of the lodgment of the claim are in the custody of the plaintiffs and still the documents were deliberately kept back and consequently an irrestible inference arises that the production would have established that the claim was lodged only on behalf of the plaintiffs. Lodgment of the insurance claim could be only on the basis that title to the goods vests in the plaintiffs and as the goods were lost the plaintiffs are entitled to the insurance amount. Shamlal had to concede that the fact of lodgment of the insurance claim was neither disclosed to Canara Bank nor in the plaint. Faced with pointed questions on this aspect in the cross-examination, Shamlal claimed that the insurance claim was lodged merely as a protective action and without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs. The explanation appealed to the trial judge, but we are unable to find any merit in the same. Shri Kapadia was at pains to explain as to whose interest the plaintiffs were protecting by lodgment of the claim save and except the plaintiffs themselves. Original defendant No. 4, the seller of the goods had already received the payment from Swiss Bank. Swiss Bank was entitled to be reimbursed by Canara Bank and Canara Bank in its turn was entitled to the amount from the plaintiffs. It is, therefore, obvious that the alleged protective action was only for the benefit of protection of the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that neither Swiss Bank nor Canara Bank are at all interested in the goods and once the documents are accepted by the plaintiffs, then the title to the goods vests in the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs would be entitled to demand the amount covered by the insurance policy if the goods are not available. It is undoubtedly true that in November, 1985, the plaintiffs had rejected the documents on the ground that the documents suffered from several discrepancies. The conduct of the plaintiffs, thereafter in January, 1986, in lodging the insurance claim clearly establishes that the plaintiffs had subsequently accepted the documents and on the basis that the title to the consignment vests in the plaintiffs, the demand was made for the insurance claim. The acceptance of the documents includes acceptance of the insurance policy which is a bearer policy. The plaintiffs could not have secured the insurance amount while still claiming that the documents are rejected. In our judgment, the contention that the insurance claim was lodged only as a protective action and without prejudice is nothing but a false explanation to wriggle out of the stand taken by the plaintiffs that the title to the goods vests in the plaintiffs, It is interesting in this connection to note that the plaintiffs rejected the documents in November, 1985, on the ground of discrepancies, and thereafter, Shamlal went abroad and claims to have discovered the alleged fraud. The claim for the insurance amount was lodged in February, 1986, and Shri Kapadia had to concede that lodgment of the claim was after full knowledge of the alleged discrepancies and the fraud. In our judgment, the fact of lodgment of the insurance claim by the plaintiffs disentitles the plaintiffs from claiming rejection of the documents on the ground of alleged discrepancies and fraud.

66. The second action taken by the plaintiffs on the basis that the title in the consignment vests in the plaintiffs is filing of the suit in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. The suit was filed on March 7, 1986, against Belvedere Investment Limited, who were the owners of the ship. Paragraph 4 of the plaint recites 'the plaintiffs are at all material times the owners of the said cargo'. The plaintiffs claimed that the owners of the ship had failed to deliver the cargo, and, therefore, the plaintiffs had suffered loss and damage. The reliefs sought were (a) injunction restraining the defendants from causing the vessel to deviate from the voyage from Mersin to Bombay began on September 30, 1985 ; (b) restraining the vessel from discharging the cargo shipped under bills of lading dated September 30, 1985 ; and (c) restraining the defendants from assigning or disposing of the interest in the vessel. The plaintiffs then claimed that liberty should be granted to arrest the vessel, without prejudice to any legal rights of the plaintiffs. Shri Kapadia submitted that the expression 'without prejudice' indicates that the suit was filed, without prejudice to any other rights. The submission is misconceived. What the plaintiffs claimed was that the relief to arrest the vessel should be granted without prejudice to any other remedies. Shri Kapadia submitted that the suit was filed and the specific averment was made that the plaintiffs are at all material times owners of the goods merely to protect the interest and that interest was not necessarily only of the plaintiffs. The submission has no merit. In case as claimed by the plaintiffs the ownership of the goods vests in the plaintiffs, then only the plaintiffs had interest in securing orders for protection of the goods. It must be noted that the plaintiffs instituted the proceedings in the Gibraltar court on the advice of their attorneys in Bombay and which is reflected in the correspondence on record. The plaintiffs had spent large amounts in engaging attorneys in London to institute the suit as well as lodgment of the insurance claim. The plaintiffs would certainly not spent substantial amounts only with a view to protect the interest of Canara Bank as now tried to be suggested by Shri Kapadia. In case the plaintiffs were so generous to spend money to protect the interest of Canara Bank, then the plaintiffs would not have failed to intimate to Canara Bank about lodgment of the insurance claim and institution of the suit in the Gibraltar court. In our judgment, the plaintiffs deliberately suppressed the fact of filing of the suit as the disclosure would have destroyed the claim made in the suit that the plaintiffs had rejected the documents on the ground of alleged discrepancies and on the ground of alleged fraud. It is required to be stated that according to the testimony of Shamlal the suit filed in the Gibraltar court was still pending when the present suit was instituted and in spite of that fact the pendency of the suit was not disclosed.

67. The third circumstance which requires to be noticed is the action of the plaintiffs in seeking extension of the forward sales contract. The plaintiffs had initially applied for a forward sales contract for purchase of foreign exchange through Canara Bank on October 29, 1985 (exhibit 'K-2'). The payment of the amount was to be made on January 28, 1986. On January 28, 1986, the plaintiffs applied for an extension of purchase of foreign exchange till April 1, 1986 (exhibit 'R-7'). On April 1, 1986, the plaintiffs put an application for cancellation of the forward sales contract and set out the reasons for cancellation (exhibit 'W-1'). In case the plaintiffs had rejected the documents in November, 1985, on realisation of the alleged discrepancy, and thereafter, in January, 1986, were aware of the alleged fraud committed by original defendant No. 4, then it is impossible to imagine why the plaintiffs should seek extension on January 28, 1986. The plaintiffs claimed that the documents were rejected on November 20, 1985, and if the claim is accurate, then there was no occasion to make any payment, and, therefore, it was wholly immaterial to seek extension on January 28, 1986. Once the documents are rejected, then the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the documents and could never claim by any stretch of imagination title to the goods covered by the documents. The fact that the plaintiffs sought extension on January 28, 1986, is a telltale circumstance to establish that the plaintiffs had not only not rejected the documents but on the other hand had accepted them and proceeded to claim title to the goods covered by the documents. The learned trial judge was therefore, right in observing that the three circumstances relied upon by the banks clearly establish the intention on the part of the plaintiffs to accept the documents and the goods covered by the said documents.

68. After recording the clear-cut finding that the clear intention of the plaintiffs is demonstrated by the three circumstances noted above, the trial judge proceeded to ignore the fact of waiver by reference to three circumstances. The first circumstance which impressed the trial judge was that the plaintiffs were forced to take action of seeking extension, the ' lodgment of the insurance claim and institution of the suit in the Gibraltar court in view of the threats given out by Canara Bank. Shri Kapadia urged that the correspondence establishes that Canara Bank was repeatedly threatening the plaintiffs to debit the account in respect of the amount due under the letter of credit, and the plaintiffs were forced to adopt proceedings to prevent Canara Bank from doing so. There is no merit whatsoever in the submission of learned counsel. In case the plaintiffs were apprehensive of the alleged threats given by Canara Bank to debit the account, then nothing prevented the plaintiffs from instituting suit simpliciter for injunction restraining Canara Bank from doing so on the ground that the plaintiffs had rejected the documents on November 20, 1985. Not only the plaintiffs did not do so, but on the other hand lodged an insurance claim, filed a suit in the Gibraltar court and did not even disclose these facts to Canara Bank. Is this a conduct of a party who is claiming that protective action was taken because Canara Bank forced the party to take action under threats In our judgment, the claim that the insurance claim was made and the suit was instituted in the Gibraltar court due to the threats of the account being debited is nothing but a piece of fertile imagination. The second circumstance referred to by the trial judge and contended by Shri Kapadia is that the plaintiffs did not have full knowledge of rejection of the documents on an earlier occasion by defendant No. 1, and, therefore, the waiver could not be treated as intentional. We are unable to find any substance in the contention. It is undoubtedly true that Canara Bank had initially informed Swiss Bank that the documents were rejected on the ground of alleged discrepancies. It is established as pointed out by Swiss Bank that the alleged discrepancies were not discrepancies at all and that the claim of Swiss Bank is upheld by the trial court and could not be seriously debated in this appeal. It was not incumbent upon Canara Bank to pursue an unsustainable claim. The fact that objection was raised to the acceptance of the documents though not conveyed by Canara Bank to the plaintiffs, we are unable to appreciate how that fact can lead to the conclusion that the institution of the suit in the Gibraltar court and lodgment of the insurance claim were not acts of intentional waiver. The plaintiffs on their own had rejected the documents on November 20, 1985, on the ground of several discrepancies and if that was so, then it was wholly immaterial whether Canara Bank had on an earlier occasion rejected the documents being discrepant and on being satisfied that the discrepancies did not exist did not communicate the fact of raising objection to the plaintiffs. In our judgment, the second circumstance relied upon by Shri Kapadia is without any substance.

69. The third ground referred to by the trial judge is that the plaintiffs were not aware that the documents are not presented by Credit Bank to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, that is before the cut-off date and that fact was established only after recording of the evidence and consequently whatever has been done by the plaintiffs prior to the suit should be ignored. We are unable to find how the action of waiver on the part of the plaintiffs could be ignored merely because the trial judge found at the hearing of the suit that the documents were not presented on October 21, 1985. It is indeed interesting to note that the trial judge had discarded, the Contention of the defendants that challenge to the presentation of documents on October 21, 1985, was not raised in the plaint and recorded a positive finding that such a challenge was indeed raised. In case the finding is accurate then the plaintiffs were fully conscious even prior to commencement of the evidence that the documents were not presented on October 2l, 1985, and, therefore, Swiss Bank was not entitled to accept the docu-ments. It is, therefore, impossible to hold that the acts of waiver on the part of the plaintiffs were not intentional and the plaintiffs could escape the consequences of their acts by reference to these circumstances. In our judgment, the trial judge was in error in holding that the plaintiffs had not waived their right to reject the documents on the ground of alleged discrepancies and on the ground of alleged fraud by the action of lodgment of the insurance claim, institution of the suit in the Gibraltar courtand seeking extension of the forward sales contract. In our judgment, the plaintiffs were clearly estopped by their own conduct and action from denying that the documents were not accepted and the title to the goods covered by the consignment did not vest in the plaintiffs.

70. Some arguments were advanced as to whether the time for payment under the letter of credit was extended to April 1, 1986, and in spite of that Swiss Bank made payment on January 28, 1986, and, therefore, their action was contrary to the terms of the credit. The trial judge held that payment was made by Swiss Bank to Credit Bank under private arrangement and the liability under the draft accepted by Swiss Bank was terminated by means other than payment. It is not necessary to examine this aspect in view of the findings recorded on the relevant points for determination set out in the earlier part of the judgment.

71. In view of the finding that the plaintiff firm was not registered, the documents were properly presented by Credit Bank to Swiss Bank on October 21, 1985, that the Swiss Bank was entitled to scrutinise and accept the same on October 23, 1985, the documents accepted by Swiss Bank did not suffer from any discrepancies and Swiss Bank had not acted negligently, the complaint of alleged fraud in antedating bills of lading is entirely frivolous and Swiss Bank was neither aware of such alleged fraud at the time of acceptance of the documents or payment, the Swiss Bank as well as Canara Bank had not colluded with original defendant No. 4 with a view to confer undue favour and the finding that the plaintiffs had waived the right of rejection of the documents and were estopped from claiming that the documents were not accepted and the title in the goods covered by the documents did not vest in the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

72. Canara Bank had filed a counter-claim on the basis that the documents were duly accepted by Swiss Bank, and, therefore, Canara Bank is entitled to be reimbursed by the plaintiffs in respect of the amount covered by the letter of credit. Canara Bank sought a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,59,95,897 along with further interest at the rate of 16 1/2 per cent, per annum on Rs. 1,76,33,000 from the date of the suit till realisation. Canara Bank also sought consequential reliefs in respect of hypothecated goods as well as properties mortgaged with Canara Bank in respect of the transaction. Shri Kapadia with his usual fairness submitted that in case the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed, then the counter-claim is required to be decreed. On specific enquiries as to whether the plaintiffs had any complaint about the quantum of the amount claimed or the consequential reliefs sought in respect of the hypothecated goods and mortgaged properties, learned counsel stated that there is no complaint and the claim is accurate. Canara Bank in view of the findings recorded earlier is entitled to the decree as claimed and, accordingly, decree will be passed.

73. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to refer to the complaint made by counsel for the appellants that the learned trial judge has passed serious strictures against the banks and their officers as well as the expert witnesses examined. It was contended that the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the court should be slow in passing uncalled for remarks and condemnation of the authorities and the witnesses. Learned counsel pointed out several observations made in the judgment. The judgment of the trial judge does not refer to the paragraphs, but the observations complained are found at pages 15, 17, 18, 44, 49, 53, 57, 159, 168 to 170, 179, 181, 182, 185, 186, 189 and 197 of the judgment in the paper book. In addition to the strictures passed to the effect that the conduct of the banks was suspicious and the banks have deliberately set up a false claim, the trial judge has also directed the Reserve Bank to issue notice to Canara Bank for investigating the affairs. Counsel pointed out that Canara Bank is a nationalised bank and the observations made by the trial judge as well as issuance of the notice was uncalled for. Counsel for Swiss Bank submitted that the record unmistakably establishes that Swiss Bank is a reputed bank in Switzerland and is graded AAA. The condemnation of the bank as well as the officers of the bank destroys the reputation of the banks and would have serious repercussions on their functioning. We are unable to share the comments made by the trial court against the banks, their officers and the expert witnesses and especially Mr. Wheble, who is aged 84 years, and was holding several important positions as disclosed in the testimony. In our judgment, on the strength of the findings recorded, the strictures were uncalled for. It is also necessary to strike down the order directing the Reserve Bank to hold investigation into the affairs of Canara Bank.

74. Accordingly, both appeals are allowed with costs, and judgment and decree dated April 17, 1989, passed by the trial court is set aside and the following decree is substituted :

'The suit is dismissed with costs. The counter-claim filed by Canara Bank is decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (f). Canara Bank is also entitled to the costs of the counter-claim.

The directions to the Reserve Bank to hold enquiry into the affairs of Canara Bank are quashed.'

75. Two advocates certified.

76. At this stage, Shri Kapadia applies for continuation of injunction issued by the trial judge for three weeks. Shri Cooper and Shri Doctor oppose the application.

77. Prayer refused.

Subject	Banking;Contract
Court	Mumbai High Court
Decided On	Jan-20-1993
Case Number	Appeal Nos. 1155 of 1989 and 120 of 1990
Judge	M.L. Pendse and ;S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Reported in	(1993)95BOMLR412
Acts	Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Appellant	Swiss Bank Corporation and Canara Bank
Respondent	Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and anr.
Appellant Advocate	K.S. Cooper, ;S.K. Cooper, ;E.B. Desai and ;D.J. Kakaria, Advs., i/b., ;Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe in Appeal No. 1155 of 1989 and ;A.M. Setalvad, ;S.H. Doctor and ;M.P.S. Rao, Advs.,
Respondent Advocate	K.S. Cooper, ;S.K. Cooper, ;E.B. Desai and ;D.J. Kakaria, Advs., i/b., ;Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe Respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 120 of 1990, ;R.A. Kapadia and ;D.D. Madon, Advs., i/
Disposition	Appeal allowed

Swiss Bank Corporation and Canara Bank Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and anr. - Court Judgment