Lalit Kumar Garg vs Development Credit Bank And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Heard parties' Counsel on appeal. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 19.3.2012 of the Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Delhi dismissing I.A. No. 356/2011 filed by defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) in O.A. No. 80/2008 for directing defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) to produce Sales Tax/VAT returns pertaining to a particular period. The contention of Mr. Sharma is that as per the usual Banking practice qua the LC, after the goods are dispatched by the consignor, the consignee presents the documents to the Bank, which after being satisfied with it, releases the payment to the consignor/beneficiary and delivers the documents, including Lorry Receipt (LR) and transit insurance, to the consignee for the delivery of goods. He further contends that the case of the defendant/appellant is that he had no business transaction with defendant/respondent No. 2 and had never received any goods as per the aforesaid practice, but the defendant/respondent No. 2, who was initially not a party to the O.A. and was impleaded on the application of the appellant, has filed its written statement and evidence saying that it had business transactions with the defendant/appellant. According to him, if the defendant/respondent No. 2 was having business transactions with the appellant he would have paid the Sales Tax and VAT on those transaction and would have shown those transactions in their Sales Tax returns and that is why the application was moved before the DRT for the production of those documents, but the Tribunal below has dismissed that application. Mr. Sharma contends that those documents were necessary to strengthen the defence of the defendant/appellant.

2 Mr. Pathak, on the other hand, submits that the contract relating to issuance of LC is independent of the contract of loan entered into between the borrower/appellant and the Bank in respect of which the Bank has filed the O.A. He also points out that the defendant/appellant had sent a letter dated 7.2.2008 to the Bank wherein he had categorically accepted the receipt of goods from the defendant/respondent No. 2 as per the terms of the LC and had also authorized the Bank to make payment and the Bank had accordingly paid the amount. According to him, there is no necessity for the production of any document at all.

Mr. Pandey also disputes the contention of Mr. Sharma and submits that respondent No. 2 was impleaded in the O.A. as a defendant only at the instance of the appellant and if the appellant was not having any business transaction with defendant/respondent No. 1 then he should not have asked to implead respondent No. 2 and as such the contention of the appellant is self contradictory. He also submits that if the defendant/appellant had any grievance against respondent No. 2, he should have availed its remedy before the competent forum.

In rejoinder, Mr. Sharma submits that the said letter of 7th February, 2008 was issued on the asking of the Bank, as it was executed on that very date when LC was issued by the Bank to the appellant. Considering the submissions of the parties' Counsel and also looking into the circumstance that the defendant/appellant has nowhere stated in his written statement, filed before the DRT, that it did not have any business transaction with respondent No. 2 and as such the copies of the Sales Tax/VAT return filed by the defendant/respondent No. 2 cannot be asked to be produced on the alleged ground. I am thus of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. This appeal, being devoid of any force is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law.