Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) THIS is a simple suit for money on account of delayed payment of the principal sum and the agreed interest. The facts adumbrated in the plaint runs as under:
(2.) THE Plaintiff -Company purchased the bonds in the form of promissory note issued by the defendant which are termed as 13.50% SIDBI Bonds 2003 (4th Series) and 12.50% SIDBI Bonds 2004 (5th Series) from one Shanker Lal Saraf on 1st July, 1998. It is undisputed that the aforesaid bonds are tradable in the market and can be purchased by any person from the holder of the said bonds. It is also undisputed that the bonds forming 4th series shall carry an interest @ 13.50% and the bonds forming 5th series carry an interest @ 12.50% in all such cases. The interest is payable on half -yearly basis on/or before 21st day of June and 21st day of December of every year. The 5th series bonds were agreed to be redeemed on 21st December, 2004 whereas the 4th series bonds were to be redeemed on 21st December, 2003. The Plaintiff -Company purchased 15 such bonds on which the interest was payable @ 13.50% and 26 bonds on which the interest is payable @ 12.50% and all such bonds carries a face value of ten lakhs each. The aforesaid 41 bonds were purchased on an aggregate price of Rs. 3.69 crores on 1st July, 1998 by the Plaintiff -Company from the said Shanker Lal Saraf. The Bonds were deposited with the defendant on July 2, 1998 at its place of business at 11, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata with the request to enface the name of the Plaintiff -Company on the said bonds. On refusal to register and/or record the name of the Plaintiff -Company by the defendant on the ground that M/s. CRB Capital Market Ltd.; had gone into liquidation proceeding who appeared to be one of the holder of the said Bonds prior to the purchased by the said Shanker Lal Saraf and the said proceeding was initiated at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India, the Plaintiff -Bank filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1456 of 1998 before this Court seeking a mandamus upon the defendant to transfer the aforesaid bonds in favour of the Plaintiff -Company and also to pay the interest as agreed in the said bonds. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of holding that the writ is not the proper remedy and permitted the petitioner to approach the Company -Court being the High Court at Delhi seeking intervention in the liquidation proceeding initiated against the said M/s. Capital Market Ltd. Though the appeal was preferred against the said order but it was not proceeded with. On the request of the Plaintiff -Company, the said Shanker Lal Saraf filed an application in the liquidation proceeding before the High Court at Delhi claiming that the aforesaid transactions should be treated as outside the purview of the liquidation proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956.
(3.) BY a judgment dated 17th December, 2004, the Delhi High Court held that the subject bonds are beyond the purview of the liquidation proceeding and directed the said Shanker Lal Saraf to put up the matter before the defendant. After the delivery of the said judgment on 11th January, 2005, the Plaintiff -Company communicated the order of the Delhi High Court to the defendant demanding the completion of all the formalities for redemption and payment of interest as all the bonds have crossed the maturity date. Since the redemption and the payment of interest requires the presentation of the original bonds, the defendant asked the Plaintiff -Company to submit the original bonds which were duly submitted on 17th February, 2005. The defendant made the payment not only the principal amount but also the interest calculated up to the date as promise in the said bond to the Plaintiff -Company. Such payment was made on 21st February, 2005 under a cover letter of the even date wherefrom it appears that certain amount on account of TDS was also deducted. By a letter dated 24th February, 2005, the Plaintiff -Company raised an objection over the rate on which the TDS was deducted. Which was accepted by the defendant as it issued a further warrant covering a sum of Rs. 58,86,833/ - on the account of excess deductions of the TDS. According to the plaint case, at the time of audit, it was detected that the interest was calculated up to 31st October, 2005 and a protest was ultimately lodged through a letter dated November 10, 2005. In the said letter not only the calculation of the interest was disputed but a further demand was raised on account of interest on delayed payment of the principal amount and the agreed interest. On both the allegations, the defendant refused to accede the demand made by the plaintiff in its letter dated November 23, 2005. The Plaintiff -Company, therefore, claims a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,25,54,483/ - as per the particulars given in Paragraph 33 & 34 of the plaint.;