K.J.Sengupta, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforesaid applications have been made by the plaintiff above- named in connection with the aforesaid suit. In the first mentioned application the plaintiff/petitioner has prayed for interlocutory relief by way of order of anti- arbitration injunction against respondent no. 1. In the second mentioned application, apart from praying anti-arbitration injunction, restrain order is sought for against the defendant no. 1 to proceed with the arbitration arising out of the contract Nos. RMS 0098, RMS 0099, RMS 0105, RMS 0110 and RMS 0125. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner claiming relief as against the respondent No. 1, for a decree for Rs.81,67,096/-; perpetual injunction restraining the first respondent from making any demand or receiving any money under letters of credit as pleaded in paragraph ' 6' of the plaint; decree for anti-arbitration injunction has been prayed for against the respondent No. 1 in relation to the said dispute mentioned in the plaint; decree for Rs.3,86,00,000/- has been claimed as against the respondent no. 2, while perpetual injunction as against respondent No. 3 has been asked for restraining it and/or its servants, agents or assigns from remitting any money under or pursuant to the letters of credit pleaded in paragraph '6' of the plaint; perpetual injunction has been sought for against the respondent no. 3 from accepting or negotiating or acting upon the shipping documents presented for negotiation by and/or on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to the respondent no. 3.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances for which the suit was filed is summarized as follows : Under five several contracts the plaintiff/petitioner agreed to purchase a large quantity of non-alloy steel melting scrap and the defendant no. 1 agreed to sell and deliver the same at an agreed price. THE said first defendant has Indian group of company viz. Stemcor India Private Limited whose office is at amongst others in the city of Mumbai as well as in Kolkata. THE defendant no. 2 agreed to act as Import Facilitator of the petitioner on payment of agreed amount of service charges and on consideration and upon deposit of agreed amount of security in cash. THE plaintiff/petitioner had and still has to keep with the defendant no. 2, MSTC, a sum of Rs. 3,86,00,000/- as by way of security and/or the margin money and the said sum of money is still lying with MSTC. All the five Letters of credit were duly forwarded to the advising bank nominated by the defendant no. 1 and/or their agents in that regard immediately on the date of opening of the letters of credit. Subsequently, there has been amendment to the letters of credit and the same was also intimated to the defendant no. 1 through its nominated Bank by appropriate communication. The plaintiff has discharged his obligation of payment under the said five several contracts by causing five several letters of credit to be opened covering the price of goods and all the letters of credit as amended have been accepted by the defendant no. 1 and its nominated Banker as due discharge of payment of the said five several contracts. Each of the five several letters of credit specified the documents to be presented for the due operation thereof and receiving payment thereunder. The first defendant and its advising bank have all along been aware that unless the documents, as specified in the letters of credit are presented to the issuing bank in strict compliance of the terms of the letters of credit, it would become non-compliant and invalid presentation of shipping documents. The original negotiable shipping documents were to be presented by the defendant no. 1 and its advising bank to IOB, the issuing bank. IOB, upon being satisfied that the documents were in conformity with the letters of credit, was to release payments and forward all documents including the shipping documents to the petitioner and/or its agent, MSTC. The property in the goods would have passed to the petitioner and/or its agent, MSTC and the petitioner would have been in a position to receive delivery of the goods and clear the same at the port for landing in India upon receipt of negotiable set of shipping documents. The petitioner and/or its agent, MSTC did not receive any of the original negotiable shipping documents from IOB or from Stemcor, first defendant.
(3.) LATER on, the petitioner came to learn that IOB had found all the documents presented by the defendant No.1, Stemcor and its advising bank in respect of 24 consignments were not in conformity with the terms of letters of credit and, IOB had duly rejected the documents as non-complaint as and when received between October, 2008 and December, 2008. Accordingly, IOB did not make over and/or even present any of the shipping documents to the petitioner or MSTC and title to the said 24 consignments did not pass on to the petitioner and/or were not transferred to the petitioner and/or its agent, MSTC. Iob has not furnished to the petitioner details of the discrepancies of the documents as purportedly presented under the letters of credit as found by the Iob. However, from the copies of the non-negotiable documents furnished to the petitioner by defendant no. 1 and its advising bank, as mentioned before, the petitioner had found out that, in fact, the documents in respect of each of the 24 consignments were discrepant and were not in conformity with the terms of the letters of credit.;