- (1.) Plaintiff is appellant against the order rejecting the plaint by Trial Court in exercise of power under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C.
(2.) As it appears, a trade protocol was executed between Republic of India and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Case of plaintiff is that it entered into an agreement for rendering services and supply of trade information with defendant No. 1 on basis of which plaintiff rendered services and was to receive an amount to the tune of Rs. 108 millions. As per arrangement in international trade with USSR, defendant No. 2 a bank in USSR was to maintain account with Reserve Bank of India. Payments to plaintiff by defendant No. 1 for the services rendered were to be made by defendant No. 2 through Reserve Bank of India (defendant No.3). Defendant No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 144 millions with the Russian Bank (defendant No.2) in its St. Peters-burg branch towards the services rendered by plaintiff which fact was intimated by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 through its St. Petersburg branch intimated that an amount of Rs. 108 millions will be remitted after plaintiff obtain a special permission of Reserve Bank of India. Such branch of the bank made payment to defendant No. 2 at Moscow for that purpose. Defendant No. 2 confirmed that amount of Rs. 108 millions available can be paid by transfer only if permission of Reserve Bank of India is given. Plaintiff obtained permission of Reserve Bank of India for receiving the money which fact was intimated by Reserve Bank of India (defendant No.3) to defendant No. 2, but defendant No.2 remained silent. Defendant No. 1 has, however, directed that money in deposit with defendant No. 2 is to be paid to defendant No. 5 another Indian Company since all rights and obligation under Contract with plaintiff stood transferred to defendant No. 5. Coming to know the same, plaintiff served notice on defendant Nos. 2 and 3 not to effect the transfer which is unlawful. In spite of it, defendant No. 3 has granted permission to defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 2 has transferred the amount to defendant No. 5 which is now in deposit with defendant No. 4, a bank in India. Since the money belongs to plaintiff, suit for permanent injunction has been filed (i) to direct defendant No. 2 to fulfil its obligation as trustee of the amount to discharge its obligation towards plaintiff, (ii) to direct defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to set apart the amount from the deposits available with them for trade between Russia and India, (iii) to restrain defendant No. 1 not to create any interference in transfer of Rs.108 millions to plaintiff, and (iv) to restrain defendant Nos. 4 and 5 not to appropriate or allow withdrawal of the sum or any part thereof from the deposit with defendant No. 4 received from defendant No.2 through defendant No.3.
(3.) Plaintiff applied for temporary injunction and obtained an ex parte order in its favour. Later, defendant No. 5 appeared and contested but the ex parte order of injunction has been confirmed. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on entering appearance, filed an application under Order 39 rule 4 C.P.C. They also filed application for the Court to exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.to reject the plaint on the grounds amongst other that suit is not entertain-able against defendant No. 2 without consent of Central Government as provided under S. 86 C.P.C. and the suit is not maintainable against Reserve Bank of India (defendant No.3) in view of Section 43 of the Reserve Bank of India Act.;