R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of alloy steel. In the month of January, 2011 the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 for financial assistance for augmentation of business. The defendant no.1 sanctioned credit facility in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 2950.50 lakh with the following break up:- (i) Rs. 2450 lakh as cash credit facility, (ii) Rs. 330.50 lakh as term loan facility and (iii) Rs. 170 lakh as letter of credit facilities. The plaintiff had to mortgage the property situated at Mouza- Dakshin Rajyadharpur in the district of Hooghly with the defendant no.1 to secure the said credit facility. The defendant no.1 also received a sum of Rs. 7.86 lakh plus tax from the plaintiff as processing fee for the said credit facility. The validity of the said credit facility expired after one year from the date of sanction and the defendant no.1 offered for renewal of the said credit facility for an enhanced amount of Rs. 35.46 crore.
(2.) The sanction of the said credit facility offered by the defendant no.1 on March 9, 2012 was not accepted by the plaintiff and as such the defendant no.1 modified the sanction of credit facility by a letter dated March 31, 2012. The modified sanction of the credit facility was accepted by the plaintiff and revised processing fee to the tune of Rs. 9,18,000/- along with service tax was paid. In the month of December 2012, the plaintiff was in need of further fund for running the business and as such the plaintiff approached the defendant no.2 for credit facility to the tune of Rs. 11.20 crore. The defendant no.2 sanctioned the credit facility as per request of the plaintiff and conveyed the same by a letter dated December 24, 2012. The term of sanction of the said credit facility was valid for a period of one year. The plaintiff paid the nonrefundable processing charge of Rs.5 lakh to the defendant no.2. One of the pre-conditions for disbursement of the loan by the defendant no.2 was pari passu mortgage of the title deed of the land of the plaintiff situated at Mouza-Dakshin Rajyadharpur in the district of Hooghly. In the meantime, the defendant no.1 extended the offer of credit facility to the plaintiff on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated February 13, 2013, which was merely an offer subject to acceptance of the same by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never accepted the terms and conditions offered by the defendant no.1 for renewal of credit facility for the next year. By one e-mail dated March 28, 2013 the defendant no.1 threatened the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.7.11 lakh towards processing fees for renewal of the credit facility. Being threatened by the defendant no.1 the plaintiff approached the defendant no.3 for credit facility to run the business. On March 22, 2013 the defendant no.3 sanctioned credit facility to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3300 lakh on condition to take over the existing credit facility from the defendant no.1. The plaintiff accepted the sanction granted by the defendant no.3 by e-mail dated March 22, 2013 and declined the offer of the defendant no.1 for renewal of modified terms and conditions of the credit facility offered by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff never accepted the modified terms and conditions of the defendant no.1 for renewal of credit facility of the plaintiff.
(3.) On April 2, 2013 the defendant no.3 liquidated the entire dues of the defendant no.1 by making payment of a sum of Rs.19,51,09,228/- and the defendant no.1 acknowledged payment of the said amount by the defendant no.3 on April 2, 2013. However, on April 2, 2013 the defendant no.1 refused to release the securities in favour of the defendant no.3 without payment of processing fees of Rs.7,11,000/- plus tax and interest accrued thereon. Moreover, the defendant no.1 directed the plaintiff to arrange for a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- until return of the original letters of credit duly discharged by the beneficiary of such letters of credit. On July 22, 2013 the defendant no.3 furnished bank guarantee on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 to the tune of Rs.1,70,00,000/- for honouring monthly bills raised by WBSEDCL and the defendant no.1 duly accepted such guarantee furnished by the defendant no.3 by issuing a letter on August 13, 2013. The plaintiff was compelled to make payment of Rs.7,98,888/- towards illegal demand of processing fees of the defendant no.1 by issuing one cheque bearing no.426548 dated October 24, 2013 in order to release the securities from the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 failed and neglected to return the securities to the defendant no.3, in spite of payment of the entire dues of the defendant no.1 on April 2, 2013 and thereby the defendant no.3 levied interest for a sum of Rs.5,38,640/- on the plaintiff on account of failure of the defendant no.1 to hand over the documents of securities in respect of the land of the plaintiff within the specified period of time. The plaintiff suffered damage to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- for failure on the part of the defendant no.1 to create pari passu charge in favour of the defendant no.2 and thereby the plaintiff could not avail of credit facility offered by the defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 also forcibly recovered from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,91,187/- towards penal interest for non-renewal of sanction of credit facility within the specified period of time. The plaintiff has, thus, instituted this suit against the defendants praying for a decree for a sum of Rs.24,71,429/- and also a decree for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest accrued thereon.;