INDIAN BANK versus M/S. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
INDIAN BANK 
v. 
M/S. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 
AUGUST 9, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.[ 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Sections 2(J)(g). 13(4) & (5) and 22. 
National Commission's judgment-Review of-On grounds of forge1y 
C 
a11d fraud by complai11a11t-Co1111nission ignored questio11 of forge1ylfraud 
and di.unissed review 11etition-lfe/d : Conunission bound to decide question 
of f01ge1y/fraud by recordi11g evide11ce-It had i11here11t power to recall its 
judgment if/it was obtained by forge1y/fraud-Fraud amounted to abuse of 
process of Commission-Evidence of p01ties already on record and vital facts 
either stood admilled or proved-Hence, Supreme Cowt in appeal could itself 
D decide that question--Complai11a11t committed forge1y a11d practised fraud 011 
the Con11nission-7J1erefore, Conunission en·ed in disn1issing revieiv petition. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections I 14 a11d 151. 
Inherent power of Cowt-Nature and exercise of-Decree obtai11ed by 
E practising fraud on Court-Review petition alleging fraud dismissed without 
deciding question of fraud-Held : Court bound to decide question of fraud 
by recording evidence and in appropliate cases it could recall its decree. 
Penal Code, 1960: Sections 463, 464, 465, 470 and 471. 
F 
Forge1y/fraud-Fraud an essential ingredient of forgery. 
Words and Phrases: "F01ge1y" and Fraud"-Meaning of-In the context 
of Sections 463 and 464 of Penal Code, 1860. 
The respondent entered into a contract for supply of goilds to a buyer 
G in France. In due course, the goods were shipped. The respondent drew 
two Bills of Exchange and forwarded the same to the Buyer through the 
appellant-Bank. In the covering letter accompanying the Bills of Exchange 
the respondent merely directed the appellant to present the documents to 
the buyer through French Bank. In the covering letter no instruction was 
H given for securing co-acceptance of the Bills of Exchange by the French 
464 
• 
INDIAN BANKv .. SA1YAMFIBRES(I) PVT.LTD. 
465 
Bank. The documents were sent by the appellant to the French Bank but A 
the same were returned unpaid. The respondent forwarded a fresh set of 
Bills of Exchange for being sent to the French Bank. The Bills of Exchange, 
on their face, specifically provided for acceptance by the buyer and co-ac-
ceptance by the French Bank. The B~nks were governed by the Uniform 
Rules for collection made by the International Chamber of Commerce. B 
Subsequently the Buyer went under lic1uidation, the French Bankintimated 
that payment could not be made and the liquidator asked the respondent 
to tile its claim for payment to the Buyer. Thereupon, the respondent tiled 
a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis-
sion claiming the value of the goods supplied to the Buyer in France from 
the appellant on ground of negligence which amounted to deficiency in 
service. The respondent's claim was based upon a second letter said to 
have been issued by it directing the appellant to obtain co-acceptance of 
the French Bank. The Commission allowed the claim and directed appel-
!ant to make the payments. The appellant filed a review petition before the 
Commission alleging that the respondent played fraud inasmuch as the 
second letter was never issued to the appellant and was forged by the 
respondent to obtain a decree in its favour. The Commission dismissed 
the review petition ignoring the question of forgery. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
D 
E 
HELD : 1. The parties had to act in accordance with the Uniform 
Rules for collection made by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC 
Rules) which specify the parties to the transaction for purpose of "Collec-
tion' as defined in Clause B(l)(i). These parties are the "Principal" who 
entrusts the operation of "Collection" to his Bank. This, in the instant case, F 
would be the respondent as the respondent entrusted the operation of 
"Collection' to the appellant. The other party is the "Remitting Bank', 
namely, a Bank to whom the operation of "Collection' is entrusted ·by the 
'Principal". In the instant case, the "Remitting Bank" would be the appellant 
as it was this Bank to whom the respondent had entrusted the job of 
"Collection". Another Bank which is involved in the whole transaction is the G 
'Collecting Bank". According to the definition, this would be a Bank other 
than the 'Remitting Bank". There is, yet, a third Bank, namely the "Present-
ing Bank" which, ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.