RAJENDRA BABU - (1.) THIS petition is filed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta affirming a decree passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court for a sum of Rs. 1015.50 lakhs on application of the respondent for judgment upon admission as provided under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts leading to the suit are as follows : Transorient Engineering Company Ltd. sub-contracted construction of students' dormitories/dining hall for the University of Baghdad, Iraq. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 functioned as consortium to finance the said project. Certain disputes having arisen petitioner filed suits against the respondent banks that the debits raised are illegal etc. Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) filed a suit for recovery of certain sums of money and an application made therein under Chapter XIII-A of the Original Side Rules and the High Court of Calcutta rejected the same and Respondents 1 and 3 Banks and E.C.G.C. were also impleaded by an amendment in the said suit. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money with certain other reliefs and in that suit, application for judgment upon admission was allowed. Appeal thereon being unsuccessful, this petition is filed.
(2.) THE application filed by 1st respondent-Bank for judgment on admission covers only a part of the suit claim. THE 1st respondent-Bank relied upon (i) Balance Sheet of the petitioner for year ending 31/03/1989 with reference to Schedules 'C', 'D' and 'E'; (ii) Minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors held on 30/05/1990 which noticed the discussion at the meeting and issues that could be deemed to have been settled as result thereof; (iii) letter dated 4/06/1990 communicating the resolution and minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 30/05/1990. In the said minutes in the meeting held on 30/05/1990, it was mentioned as follows :- "IT WAS RESOLVED THAT : In consideration of the United Bank of India, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi, having agreed to the continuation of the previously sanctioned aggregate eredit limits amounting to Rs. 17.45 crores and in consideration of the Bank having agreed to continue the operation of the various borrowing accounts with outstanding dues, as stated hereinbelow in detail, the Company agrees to duly execute a fresh set of documents as required by the Bank there against. That Mr. Harcharan Singh Dugal, the Managing Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to execute the said documents and the official seal of the Company be affixed thereon. It is also resolved that the Company disputes the amount of Rs. 3,08,01,000 debited to its Cash Credit Account on 1-8-89 which along with interest stands at Rs. 3,60,62,579 as on 31-2-90. That the company accepts its liability as per details stated hereinbelow : JUDGEMENT_425_SUPREME5_2000Html1.htm That, also due to fluctuations in Exchange Rate there has been difference in amount due under Jordan Guarantee amounting to about Rs. 21 lakhs which is not reflected in details shown above." A copy of the aforesaid resolution was sent to the plaintiff with the following note as indicated in the letter dated 4/06/1990: "(a) We do not confirm the debit entry of Rs. 3,60,62,579.00 representing your share of the involved guarantee with interest up to 31-3-90 which has been effected by you unauthorisedly against the illegal payment made by the Indian Overseas Bank. We are enclosing a copy of the reply given to the Legal Notice received by us from them. The reply is self-explanatory. You will agree that before effecting the said payment consisting of such a large amount, a reference ought to have been made to us. (b) The loan account of Janpath Branch amounting to Rs. 4,03,820 is not accepted and is totally denied. We have repaid your Janpath Branch the Convertible was loan for Baghdad along with interest in full. The debit in your ledger is on account of the Janpath Branch not giving effect to the reduced interest rate as directed by the Reserve Bank of India. At their request a copy of the RBI-circular was given to them and had also been sent to you. (c) That fresh documents are executed against the consideration of permitting us to operate the sanctioned limits there against as they stand. The debit entry of Rs. 3,60,52,579 and entries for interest thereon will have no bearing on the actual amount due as confirmed by us in our Board Resolution. (d) Almost two years ago an unofficial freeze was imposed on our Inland Guarantee limits for reasons never communicated to us. Thus, you had denied fresh Guarantees for Bid Bonds etc. to tender for new works and the company's huge fleet of Construction equipments and trained personnel perforce thereby remained idle since the last one and a half year."
(3.) THE petitioners filed an affidavit-in-opposition to contend that : 1. That the defendant No. 1's suit is barred by limitation; 2. That the resolution dated 30-5-90 was passed subject to a condition that the inland guarantee limit would be resumed and that as the condition was not fulfilled, the resolution was not binding; 3. That the defendant No. 1's suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10, CPC because the matter in issue in the suit was also directly and substantially in issue in the previous suits filed by others. 4. That the suit of the defendant No. 1 is bad for misjoinder of parties. The defendants further contended that, insofar as resolution dated 30-5-1990 and a letter dated 4-6-1990 are concerned, they are to the effect that they are matters of record and save what are matters of record and save what would appear from the letter dated 30-5-1990 all allegations to the contrary are disputed and denied. It is categorically denied that there is any admission of liability by the first respondent to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 10,15,80,090 as on 30/03/1990 or that since the said alleged admission of the liability the claim of the petitioner has increased and it is now more than Rs. 24 crores, as wrongly alleged, if at all.;