- (1.) The petitioner No. 2 was the sole proprietor of a concern known as Jain Incorporated which was carrying on business of Export Leather Goods and other products to various countries. The said proprietory concern has since been taken over by the first petitioner, of which the second petitioner is one of the Directors. The second petitioner took loan from the State Bank of India. Admittedly, a Mortgage Suit was filed for recovery of the amount by the respondent No. 6 against the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2, however, claims that she had been paying the dues in terms of the agreement. She had alleged various mala fide actions on the part of the officers of the respondent No. 6.
(2.) It is also beyond in dispute that the first respondent has delegated its power to the 6th respondent as regards grant of E.C.G.C. coverage in case of credit sales. In paragraph 9(e) of the petition, the petitioner, inter alia, stated : "(e) The officers including the Manager of the concerned branch of the respondent No. 6 asked for E.C.G.C. coverage prior to disbursement of funds in the Permanent E.P.C. Account though the same was fully covered and secured by proper letter of credit. The E.C.G.C. coverage is available only in case of credit sales. The petitioner No. 2 has all along been allowed to avail of E.P.C. against letter of credit without E.C.G.C. coverage being required but all of a sudden the officers of the concerned branch asked for E.C.G.C. coverage when your petitioner No. 2 received an order against letter of credit from an Austrian buyer. Capital LTG. This caused severe delay and led to postponement of the shipment date and caused financial losses to your petitioner No. 2 though such a coverage was not at all required as it was a case of L/c sale. However, due to all this the Austrian buyer was lost for ever as he could not rely on timely shipment which is very vital in leather goods export market. This will appear for instance from the letter dated 3rd August, 1993 from the petitioner to the respondent No. 6".
(3.) According to the petitioners, the story was repeated again and again, as a result whereof various export orders received by the second petitioner did not materialise due to which her reputation suffered and she lost business to a significant extent. The petitioner No. 2 wrote a letter to the respondent No. 6 bringing to the notice dated 4th August, 1992.;