//
you're reading...
legal issues

The letter of credit established by the issuing bank, inter alia, made the following stipulations: ” . . . . . . . . THIS DOCUMENTARY CREDIT WHICH IS AVAILABLE BY NEGOTIATION OF 2

SBI hq in Mumbai

Image via Wikipedia

                                                                   REPORTABLE

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 1709 OF 2007

State Bank of India & Anr.                                       .... Appellants

                                      Versus

M/s. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr.                            ....Respondents

                                  JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. 

              This civil appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment 

and decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the Division 

Bench   of   that   Court   allowed   the   first   appeal   of   the   present   1st 

respondent--M/s.   Emmsons   International   Ltd.--and   set   aside   the 

                                                                           1

judgment and decree of the trial court (First Additional District Judge, 

Bhopal) and decreed the 1st respondent's monetary claim.

2.             Unialkem   Fertilizers   Limited--2nd  respondent   in   this 

appeal   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   `the   buyer')   placed   a   purchase 

order on M/s. Emmsons International Limited (hereinafter referred to 

as `the seller')  for supply of 2000 MT of Syrian Rock Phosphate  at 

the rate of Rs. 2100/- per metric ton for an aggregate amount of Rs. 

43,86,411/-.   The   payment   terms   provided   `against   180   days 

issuance of letter of credit'. On June 18, 1997, at the request of the 

buyer,   a  letter   of   credit   for   Rs.   43,86,411/-   was  established   by  the 

appellant   No.   1   --   State   Bank   of   India,   Industrial   Finance   Branch, 

Bhopal  (hereinafter   referred   to  as  `the  issuing  bank')    in     favour  of 

the   seller;     the   appellant   No.   2   --   State   Bank   of   India,   New   Delhi 

Main   Branch,   New   Delhi   being   the   advising   Bank.   The   seller 

supplied the material vide   sale invoice, high seas delivery,   bills of 

lading, etc. and the buyer is said to have  accepted the documents.

3.             The letter of credit established by the issuing bank, inter 

alia, made the following stipulations: 

               "   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   THIS   DOCUMENTARY CREDIT 

               WHICH   IS   AVAILABLE  BY   NEGOTIATION   OF 

                                                                                   2

     YOUR DRAFT AT 180 DAYS  FROM DESPATCH 

     DRAWN  FOR 100.00% OF  INVOICE  VALUE  ON 

     UNIALKEM FERTILIZERS LTD., E-5 PLOT NO. 4, 

     RAVI   SHANKAR   NAGAR,   BHOPAL,   462   016 

     BEARING   THE   CLAUSE   "DRAWN   UNDER 

     DOCUMENTARY            CREDIT         NO.         0192097 

     LC000087   OF   STATE   BANK   OF   INDIA, 

     INDUSTRIAL   FINANCE   BRANCH,   GR.   FLOOR, 

     L.H.O.   PREMISES,   HOSHANGABAD   ROAD, 

     BHOPAL - 462 011 (INDIA)." ACCOMPANIED BY 

     DOCUMENTS LISTED IN ATTACHED SHEET (S) 

     EVIDENCING   DISPATCH   OF   GOODS   AS   PER 

     THE ATTACHED SHEETS.

     FOR   LIST   OF   REQUIRED   DOCUMENTS, 

     MERCHANDISE   DESCRIPTION   AND   OTHER 

     INSTRUCTIONS   PLEASE   SEE  THE   ATTACHED 

     CONTINUATION   SHEETS   WHICH   FORM   AN 

     INTEGRAL PART OF THIS CREDIT.

     SHIPMENT FROM   : SYRIA TO KANDLA, INDIA

     SHIPMENT TERMS : CIF

     PARTIAL SHIPMENT  : ALLOWED

     TRANSSHIPMENT     :      NOT ALLOWED

     INSTRUCTION TO THE ADVISING BANK:    

     -    ALL   BANK CHARGES   (OTHER   THAN 

          ISSUING BANK   CHARGES)   ARE   FOR 

          ACCOUNT OF BENEFICIARY.

-         DISCREPANT   DOCUMENTS   TO   BE   SENT 

          STRICTLY ON COLLECTION BASIS.

-         ALL   DOCUMENTS   TO   INDICATE   L/C   NO. 

          0192097 LC 000087 AND DATE 18/06/97.

-         NEGOTIATIONS UNDER THIS CREDIT ARE 

          RESTRICTED   TO   STATE   BANK   OF   INDIA, 

          NEW   DELHI,   MAIN   BRANCH,   11,   SANSAD 

          MARG, POST BOX NO. 430, NEW DELHI - 

          110 001.

                                                                   3

           -         EXCEPT   IN   SO   FAR   AS   OTHERWISE 

                     EXPRESSELY                         STATED                    THIS 

                     DOCUMENTARY  CREDIT  IS  SUBJECT  TO 

                     THE         UNIFORM                CUSTOMS                   AND 

                     PRACTICES           FOR                  DOCUMENTARY 

                     CREDITS  (UCP)  (1993  REVISION)  OF THE 

                     INTERNATIONAL                      CHAMBERS                   OF 

                     COMMERCE (PUBLICATION NO. 500)

                WE   HEREBY   ENGAGE   WITH   DRAWERS 

                AND/OR   BONAFIDE   HOLDERS   THAT  DRAFT 

                DRAWN   AND   NEGOTIATED   IN   CONFORMITY 

                WITH   THE   TERMS   OF   THIS   CREDIT   WILL   BE 

                DULY   HONOURED   ON   PRESENTATION   AND 

                THAT DRAFTS ACCEPTED WITHIN THE TERMS 

                OF   THIS   CREDIT   WILL   BE   DULY   HONOURED 

                AT MATURITY. THE AMOUNT OF EACH DRAFT 

                MUST   BE   ENDORSED   ON   THE   REVERSE 

                OF   THIS   CREDIT     BY   THE     NEGOTIATION 

                BANK..........." 

                                          (Emphasis supplied by us)

4.              The terms of Letter of Credit were amended on June 23, 

1997 to the following effect :

                "AT   THE   REQUEST   OF   THE   APPLICANT 

                UNIALKEM FERTILIZERS LTD., E-5 PLOT NO. 4, 

                RAVI SHANKAR NAGAR, BHOPAL - 462 016. WE 

                HAVE   TODAY   AMENDED   OUR   CAPTIONED 

                LETTER OF CREDIT AS UNDER :

                FIRST   PAGE   OF   LETTER   OF   CREDIT   LINE 

                SECOND   TO   READ   AS   :   NEGOTIATION   OF 

                YOUR   DRAFT   AT   180   DAYS   FROM   THE   DATE 

                OF DELIVERY ORDER DATED 18/06/97 INSTEAD 

                OF   EXISTING   PLEASE   MAKE   THE   FOLLOWING 

                AMENDMENTS TO ATTACHED SHEET NO. 1 OF 

                                                                                           4

                L/C   POINT   NO.  01   TO   BE  DELETED   POINT  NO. 

                02 TO BE DELETED  POINT NO. 04 TO READ AS 

                COPY   OF   CERTIFICATE   OF   SYRIAN   ORIGIN 

                ISSUED   BY   CHAMBER   OF   COMMERCE 

                INSTEAD OF EXISTING. POINT NO. 05 TO READ 

                AS   COPY   OF   CERTIFICATE   OF   QUALITY   AND 

                QUANTITY   ISSUED   BY   CHAMBER   OF 

                COMMERCE INSTEAD OF EXISITING POINT NO. 

                12   TO   READ   AS   DRAFT   DRAWN   UNDER   THIS 

                LETTER OF CREDIT ARE NEGOTIABLE BY THE 

                STATE   BANK   OF   INDIA,   MAIN   BRANCH,   NEW 

                DELHI   AND   ORIENTAL   BANK   OF   COMMERCE, 

                OVERSEAS   BANK,   NEHRU   PLACE,   NEW   DELHI 

                ALSO INSTEAD OF EXISTING.

                ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN 

                UNCHANGED." 

                                             (Emphasis supplied by us) 

5.              On   July   8,   1997,   the   issuing   bank   received   negotiated 

documents   under   the   letter   of   credit   from   Oriental   Bank   of 

Commerce   (hereinafter   to   be   referred   as   `negotiating   bank')     for 

payment.   On   that   day   itself,   the   issuing   bank   pointed   out   the 

following discrepancies to the negotiating bank :

        (i)     certificate   from   the   negotiating   bank   mentioning   all 

                the terms of credit have not been furnished;

        (ii)    the certificate of Syrian Origin is not issued by 

                Chamber of Commerce.

The   issuing  bank,   thus,   advised   the   negotiating   bank   to   rectify  the 

discrepancies within seven days of submission of documents.

                                                                                5

6.             Thereafter,   between   July   10,   1997   and   February   7, 

1998,   the   correspondence   ensued   through   telegrams   and   letters 

between   the   negotiating   bank   and   the   issuing   bank.     According   to 

the negotiating bank, the discrepancies notified by the issuing bank 

were rectified and the documents complied   with the requirement of 

the credit.     On the other hand, the issuing bank continued to insist 

that the documents were discrepant; the documents presented were 

not acceptable to it and it was holding the documents on collection 

basis at the risk and responsibility of the negotiating bank. 

7.             It was then that the seller brought an action by way of a 

summary  suit for  a decree in the sum of Rs. 63,74,356/-  (principal 

amount of Rs. 43,86,411/- and interest of Rs. 19,87,945/-) together 

with the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date 

of   the   suit   to   the   date   of   decree   and   thereafter   the   interest   at   the 

same   rate   on   decretal   amount     till   realization   against   the   issuing 

bank and the advising bank.  The buyer was impleaded as a formal 

party.   

8.             The issuing bank (defendant no. 1) made an application 

for leave to defend  which was granted by the trial court. The issuing 

                                                                                   6

bank then filed written statement justifying its action of not honouring 

the   credit   on   diverse   grounds,   namely;   (i)   the   certificate   of   origin 

issued by Chamber of Commerce was different from the certificate 

of origin dated March 30, 1997 issued by the supplier of the material; 

(ii)   neither   the   description   of   goods   nor   the   quantity   or   weight 

matched  with each other in the above documents; (iii) the certificate 

of origin has been issued in favour of MMTC and not in favour of the 

seller;   (iv)   at   the   request   of   the   negotiating   bank,   the   documents 

were retained by it  but only on collection basis in order to remit the 

amount after collecting the same from the buyer and (v) it has acted 

in   accord   with   Uniform   Customs   and   Practice   for   Documentary 

Credits  (for short, ` UCP500').

9.            On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the 

following five issues :

        "Issue No. 1.        Whether   respondent   Nos.   1   &   2 

                             have           dishonoured            the 

                             documents   relating   to   the   "letter 

                             of   credit"   against   the   rules   and 

                             practice?

        Issue No. 2.         Whether   applicant   is   eligible   to 

                             get   Rupees   43,86,411/-   and   18 

                             percent interest p.a.  over  it  from 

                             respondent   Nos.   1   &   2   on   the 

                                                                              7

                             basis   of   letter   of   credit   given   by 

                             them?

        Issue No. 3. Assistance and expenses?

        Issue No. 4          Whether respondent is eligible to 

                             get         Rs.         14,258/-           as 

                             handling/collection   fee   from 

                             applicant?

        Issue No. 5.         Whether   applicant   has   accepted 

                             the   encashment   of   bill   and 

                             document on collection basis?"  

It may be noted that trial court has referred to the seller  as applicant 

and   the   issuing   bank   (defendant   no.   1)   and   the   advising   bank 

(defendant no. 2) as respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 

10.           The   parties   tendered   oral   as   well   as   documentary 

evidence in support of their respective case.

11.           The trial court after viewing the evidence and hearing the 

arguments held that the issuing bank has properly dishonoured the 

documents   relating   to   the   letter   of   credit   and   the   seller   was   not 

entitled to get any amount or interest from the issuing bank and the 

advising bank on the basis of that letter of credit. The trial court has 

also   concluded   that   seller   accepted   the   encashment   of   bill   and 

document on collection basis. In light of these findings, the trial court 

vide its decision dated February 4, 2002 dismissed the seller's claim.

                                                                                8

12.             The   seller   filed   first   appeal   against   the   judgment   and 

decree of the trial court before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 

As noted above, the Division Bench of that Court allowed the seller's 

appeal and granted a decree to the seller as prayed in the suit.

13.             The legal position appears to be fairly well-settled that a 

draft with accompanying documents must be in strict accord with the 

letter of credit. If the documents presented comply with the terms of 

the credit, the issuing bank must honour its obligation in accordance 

with the terms of credit. In United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India  

and others1, this Court referred to  few decided cases of the English 

Courts,   Halsbury's   Laws  of   England    and   also   couple   of   books   on 

the   subject   by   eminent   authors--Davis'   Law   Relating   To 

Commercial Letters of Credit, 2nd Edn. (at page 76) and Paget's Law 

of   Banking,   8th  Edn.   (at   page   648)--and   it   was   held   that   the 

documents  tendered by the seller must comply with the terms of the 

letter   of   credit   and   that   the   banker   owes   a   duty   to   the   buyer   to 

ensure   that   the   buyer's   instructions   relative   to   the   documents 

against which the letter of credit is to be honoured are complied with. 

It was stated that the description of the goods in the relative bill of 

1 (1981) 2 SCC 766

                                                                                9

lading  must   be  the  same   as  the    description   in  the  letter   of   credit, 

that   is,   the   goods   themselves   must   in   each   case   be   described   in 

identical   terms,  even   though   the   goods   differently  described   in   the 

two documents are, in fact, the same. The Court  reiterated, ` . . . . . . 

a bank issuing or confirming a letter of credit is not concerned with 

the underlying contract between the buyer and seller.     Duties of a 

bank under a letter of credit are created by the document itself, but 

in any case it has the power and is subject to the limitations which 

are   given   or   imposed   by   it,   in   the   absence   of   the   appropriate 

provisions in the letter of credit'.

14.                Where the customer of bank instructs the bank to open a 

credit, the bank acts at its peril if it departs from the precise terms of 

the mandate. 

15.                Lord Diplock in  Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd. 

v. Jalsard Pty. Ltd.2 stated at page 286 of the Report that the issuing 

banker   and   his   correspondent   bank   have   to   make   decisions   as   to 

whether a document which has been tendered by the seller complies 

with the requirements of a credit.

2 (1973) AC 279

                                                                           10

16.           It   needs   no   emphasis   that   a   contract   is   concluded 

between the issuing bank and the seller no sooner the bank issues 

the   credit   and   communicates   it   to   the   seller.   Under   an   irrevocable 

credit   the   issuing   bank   gives   an   unequivocal   and   binding 

undertaking   to   the   seller   that   it   will   pay   against   documents/bills 

drawn in compliance with the terms of credit.

17.           The   relevant   clauses   of   Articles   13,   14   and   19   of   UCP 

500 read as under:

       "Article 13.   

       Standard for Examination of Documents

       a      Banks  must  examine all documents  stipulated  in  the 

              Credit   with   reasonable   care,   to   ascertain   whether   or 

              not   they   appear,   on   their   face,   to   be   in   compliance 

              with   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the   Credit. 

              Compliance of the stipulated documents on their face 

              with   the  terms  and   conditions  of   the   Credit,   shall  be 

              determined by international standard banking practice 

              as   reflected   in   these   Articles.     Documents   which 

              appear   on   their   face   to   be   inconsistent   with   one 

              another will  be considered  as not appearing on their 

              face   to   be   in   compliance   with   the   terms   and 

              conditions of the Credit.

              Documents   not   stipulated   in   the   Credit   will   not   be 

              examined by banks.  If they receive such documents, 

              they shall return them to the presenter or pass them 

              on without responsibility.

                                                                                11

b        The   Issuing   Bank,   the   Confirming   Bank,   if   any,   or   a 

         Nominated   Bank   acting   on   their   behalf,   shall   each 

         have a reasonable time, not to exceed seven banking 

         days following the day of receipt of the documents, to 

         examine   the   documents   and   determine   whether   to 

         take   up   or   refuse   the   documents   and   to   inform   the 

         party   from   which   it   received   the   documents 

         accordingly.

c         . . . . . . .

Article 14.   

Discrepant Documents and Notice

a         . . . . . . 

b        Upon   receipt   of   the   documents   the   Issuing   Bank 

         and/or  Confirming Bank, if any, or a Nominated Bank 

         acting on their behalf, must determine on the basis of 

         the  documents alone whether  or not  they appear  on 

         their   face   to   be   in   compliance     with   the   terms   and 

         conditions of the Credit.   If the documents appear on 

         their face not to be in compliance with the terms and 

         conditions   of   the   Credit,   such   banks   may   refuse   to 

         take up the documents.

c        If   the   Issuing   Bank   determines   that   the   documents 

         appear on their face not to be in compliance with the 

         terms  and conditions  of the  Credit,  it may in its sole 

          judgement approach the Applicant for a waiver of the 

         discrepancy(ies).  This does not, however, extend the 

         period mentioned in sub. Article 13 (b).

d .               i.   . . . . . . 

                  ii.  Such    notice  must  state  all discrepancies  in 

                  respect   of   which   the   bank   refuses   the 

                  documents   and   must   also   state   whether   it   is 

                  holding the documents at the disposal of, or is 

                  returning them to, the presenter.

                  iii.  . . . . . . . .

                                                                           12

       e       If   the   Issuing   Bank   and/or   Confirming   Bank,   if   any, 

               fails   to   act   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   this 

               Article   and/or   fails   to   hold   the   documents   at   the 

               disposal   of,   or   return   them     to   the   presenter,   the 

               Issuing Bank and/or Confirming Bank, if any, shall be 

               precluded from claiming that the documents are not in 

               compliance   with   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the 

               Credit. 

       f       . . . . . . . . . .

       Article 19. 

       Bank-to-Bank Reimbursement Arrangements

       a       . . . . . . .

       b       Issuing   Banks   shall   not   require   a   Claiming   Bank   to 

               supply a certificate of compliance with the terms and 

               conditions of the Credit to the Reimbursing Bank.

       c       . . . . . . . .

       d        . . . . . . 

       e        . . . . . . ."

18.            In   light   of   the   above   legal   position,   we   heard   Mr.   R.K. 

Sanghi,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   and   Mr.   Shyam   Divan, 

learned senior counsel for the 1st  respondent for some time. In the 

course of hearing, however,   it transpired that   the High Court in its 

judgment   that   runs   into   56   foolscap   pages   while   reversing   the 

judgment   of   the   trial   court,   has   not   at   all   adverted   to   issue   no.   5 

framed by the trial court nor it considered or upset the finding of the 

trial court on that issue.  

                                                                                    13

19.            Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the  seller - 

1st  respondent fairly stated that the finding on issue no. 5 recorded 

by   the   trial   court   has   not   at   all   been   considered   in   the   impugned 

judgment   although,   he   strenuously   urged   that   once   the 

discrepancies   on   the   basis   of   which   the   issuing   bank   refused   the 

documents were rectified and  the time allowed for encashment had 

expired, the issuing bank was obliged to honour the letter of credit 

and the case set up by the issuing bank that the seller had accepted 

the encashment of bill and document on collection basis was false 

and frivolous. 

20.            Having regard to the controversy set up by the parties in 

the course of trial, in our view,   it cannot be said that issue no. 5 is 

immaterial   or   finding   of   the   trial   court   on   that   issue   is 

inconsequential.   The   High   Court   was   hearing   the   first   appeal   and, 

as a first appellate court it ought to have considered and addressed 

itself   to   all   the   issues   of   fact   and   law   before   setting   aside   the 

judgment of the trial court.   The judgment of the High Court suffers 

from a grave error as it ignored and overlooked the finding of the trial 

court on issue no. 5 that the seller accepted the encashment of bill 

and document on collection basis.   The High Court was required to 

                                                                             14

address itself to issue no. 5 which surely had   bearing on the final 

outcome of the case. 

21.             In  Santosh Hazari  v.  Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by  

L.Rs.3, this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under :   

                "........The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse 

                or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is 

                a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted 

                by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing 

                both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of 

                the   appellate   court   must,   therefore,   reflect   its 

                conscious   application   of   mind   and   record   findings 

                supported   by   reasons,   on   all   the   issues   arising 

                along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by 

                the   parties   for   decision   of   the   appellate   court.   ... 

                while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court 

                must   come   into   close   quarters   with   the   reasoning 

                assigned by the trial court and then assign its own 

                reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would 

                satisfy   the   court   hearing   a   further   appeal   that   the 

                first   appellate   court   had   discharged   the   duty 

                expected of it......"

22.             The above view has been followed by a 3-Judge Bench 

decision   of   this   Court   in  Madhukar   and   Others  v.  Sangram   and  

Others4,    wherein   it   was   reiterated   that   sitting   as   a   court   of   first 

appeal, it is  the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and 

the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings.  

3 (2001) 3 SCC 179

4 (2001) 4 SCC 756

                                                                                   15

23.             In the case of  H.K.N. Swami  v.  Irshad Basith (Dead) by  

LRs.5, this Court (at pages 243-244) stated  as under :

                "The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well 

                as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right 

                to   be   heard   both   on   questions   of   law   as   also   on 

                facts   and   the   first   appellate   court   is   required   to 

                address itself to all issues and decide the case by 

                giving   reasons.   Unfortunately,   the   High   Court,   in 

                the   present   case   has   not   recorded   any   finding 

                either   on   facts   or   on   law.   Sitting   as   the   first 

                appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to 

                deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the 

                parties   before   recording   the   finding   regarding 

                title.........".

24.             Again   in  Jagannath  v.  Arulappa   and   Another6  while 

considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 

1908,  this Court  (at pages 303-304) observed as follows :

                "2.  A   court   of   first   appeal   can   reappreciate   the 

                entire evidence and come to a different conclusion. 

                In   the   present   case,   we   find   that   the   High   Court 

                has not adverted to many of the findings which had 

                been   recorded   by   the   trial   court.   For   instance, 

                while dismissing the suits filed by the respondents, 

                the   trial   court   had   recorded   a   finding   on   Issue   5 

                that   the   defendant-appellant   had   taken   actual 

                possession   of   the   suit   properties   in   Execution 

                Petition No. 137 of 1980 arising out of OS No. 224 

                of   1978.   Without   reversing   this   finding,   the   High 

                Court simply allowed the appeals and decreed the 

                suits   filed   by   the   plaintiff-respondents   in   toto. 

                Similarly, there are other issues on which findings 

                recorded by the trial court have not been set aside 

5 (2005) 10 SCC 243

6 (2005) 12 SCC 303

                                                                                        16

                by   the   High   Court.   The   points   involved   in   the 

                appeals   before   the   High   Court   required   a   deeper 

                consideration   of  the  findings   recorded  by  the   trial 

                court as well as the evidence and the pleadings on 

                record."

25.             The   decided   cases   of   this   Court   in  Jagannath6  and 

H.K.N. Swami5  were noticed by this Court in a later decision in the 

case of Chinthamani Ammal v. Nandagopal Gounder and Another7.

26.             In   our   view,   the     High   Court   failed   to   follow   the 

fundamental   rule   governing   the   exercise   of   its   jurisdiction   under 

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that where the first 

appellate court reverses the judgment of the trial court, it is required 

to   consider     all   the   issues   of   law   and   fact.     This   flaw   vitiates   the 

entire judgment of the High Court. The judgment of the High Court, 

therefore, cannot be sustained.

27.             For the above reasons, we accept the appeal, set aside 

the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore First Appeal 

No. 225 of 2002 for re-hearing and fresh decision. All  contentions of 

the parties are kept open to be agitated at the time of the hearing of 

the first appeal. No order as to costs.

7 (2007) 4 SCC 163

                                                                                  17

                                    .........................J.

                                         (Aftab Alam)

                                        ........................ J.

                                          (R.M. Lodha) 

NEW DELHI.

AUGUST  18, 2011.                                                18

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

One thought on “The letter of credit established by the issuing bank, inter alia, made the following stipulations: ” . . . . . . . . THIS DOCUMENTARY CREDIT WHICH IS AVAILABLE BY NEGOTIATION OF 2

  1. I adore foregathering helpful info, this post has got me even far more information! .

    Posted by adoption chiens | August 28, 2011, 7:17 AM

Blog Stats

  • 2,865,392 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com