- (1.) The present appeal has been filed under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) impugning the order dated 19th December, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No.3947/2014, inter alia, passing an order for status quo and thereby restraining the Bank of Baroda, respondent No.2 herein, from making payments to Credit Agricole, CIB, appellant herein, on the due date as provided for in the Letter of Credit bearing No.2630IMPLC0005614 for a sum of USD 432,500/- (U.S. Dollar Four Hundred Thirty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) issued by the respondent No.2 on 27th June, 2014, wherein the appellant was the beneficiary bank.
(2.) Admittedly, the respondent No.1 herein, who is plaintiff in the suit proceedings, filed the suit for permanent injunction seeking the following prayers: "A. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.2, from making any payment under the Letter of Credit No.1868FLC01029/14 dated 30.06.2014 to M/s Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, Defendant No.5, being the beneficiary under the Letter of Credit for Defendant No.3 or to any one else by debiting the account of the Plaintiff and/or taking any other coercive or precipitative action in relation thereto; B. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1, from making any payment under the Letter of Credit No.2630IMPLC0005614 dated 27.06.2014 to the Defendant No.4 being the beneficiary under the Letter of Credit for Defendant No.3, or to any one else by debiting the account of the Plaintiff and/or taking any other coercive or precipitative action in relation thereto;"
(3.) The following impugned order dated 19th December, 2014 was passed: "1. Matter taken up today at the end of the Board at about 11.45 A.M. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the defendant No.5. 3. On the plaintiff taking steps within a week, summons in the suit and notice in the captioned IA be issued to the defendant No.5, by all permissible modes including e-mail, returnable on 4th February, 2015. 4. Written statement/reply be filed by the defendant No.5 within two weeks from the date of service of the process. Replication/rejoinder, if any, be filed by the plaintiff before the next date of hearing. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 state that they have not got the complete set of documents. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff states that he will supply all the papers during the course of the day. 6. Written statement/reply be filed by the defendants No.1 to 4 within three weeks. Replication/rejoinder, if any, be filed by the plaintiff before the next date of hearing. 7. Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel representing the defendant No.3 on instructions from Mr.Shekhar, learned counsel for the defendant No.3 states that the entire money of the two LCs has already been credited to the account of the defendant no.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff disputes it. 8. Mr.Sandeep Mahapatra, Advocate representing the defendant No.4 states that as per swift message received from Bank of Baroda defendant No.2, the money that has been paid to the defendant No.3 is to be paid to the defendant No.4 today. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff disputes it. 9. There is dispute among the parties as to the discounting of two LCs in question. Till the next date of hearing, the parties can be directed to maintain the status quo regarding the two LCs in question. To this, learned counsel for defendant No.4 has serious opposition. He states that if status quo order is passed, the defendant No.4 would not be able to receive the money. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the meantime, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today regarding the two LCs in question till the next date of hearing. 11. List on 4th February, 2015.";