ENGINEERING PROJECTS(INDIA) LIMITED vs MIZORAM RURAL BANK CSOS 2038/09 dated 10/10/17 Justice Mukta Gupta

DELHI HIGH COURT

Order 37 Rule 3 CPC Leave to defend application Two stands have been taken by the defendant bank, firstly, that though the four bank guarantees were issued but they were not by the duly authorised and competent officer and were issued in connivance and collusion with the plaintiff and contractor and secondly, that the four bank guarantees were forged and fabricated for the reason no corresponding records of the four bank guarantees were available with the bank Plaintiff has placed on record not only the four bank guarantees but also letter sent by the Chairman of the defendant bank noting that the four bank guarantees in question were issued by their Vaivakawn Branch, jointly by the Branch Manager and the second officer, however, they were not vested with the power to issue bank guarantees The fact remains that the plaintiff proceeded with the work based on the four bank guarantees and hence it is a case for grant of conditional leave to defend to the defendant bank in view of its two contrary stands.

The defendant bank is thus granted leave to defendant subject to its depositing a sum of Rs. 1,18,37,396/- the amount due on the date of filing of the suit with the Registrar General of this Court within eight weeks Application is disposed off.

for Judgment Click Here ~

Judgment delhi high court: justice Mukta gupta:. Vaibhav tomar DBA

Adv Vaibhav Tomar (All Rights Reserved )