http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 23  

PETITIONER: INDIAN BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA} PVT.LTD

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S. SAGHIR AHMAD. J.      These are  two appeals  against the  judgments  of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 2.   The facts  on record  indicate that  the respondent had entered into  Contract No.31/89  with a  French Firm M/s STE Kolori (for  short, ’Buyer’)  for supply  of 1 lac metres of cotton  grey   sheeting  of   the  value  of  French  Francs 4,37,500/-. In  due course,  the goods  were shipped  to the Buyer and on 09.06.90, respondent drew two Bills of Exchange on the  Buyer for  French Franc  3,50,000/- and French Franc 87,500/-. The  draft mentioned  at the top that the Bills of Exchange had  to be  co-accepted by  the Buyer’s bank. These documents were sent by the appellant to that Bank on 18.6.90 as requested  by the respondent but on 9.7.90, the documents were returned  unpaid. However,  on the  instructions of the respondent, the documents were re-presented to Banque Leumi, Paris on  13.7.90. On  9.4.91, on  the instructions  of  the respondent, a  telex was  sent to  Banque  Leumi,  Paris  to transfer the  documents  to  another  French  Bank,  namely, Society Lyonnaise  De Banque,  Lyon, France, and on the same day, fresh  Bills of  Exchange dated 6.3.91 were sent to the French Bank  at the   request  of the  respondent. In  these Bills of  Exchange, there was no clause for co-acceptance by the French  Bank  which,  however,  returned  the  documents unpaid on 9.8.91. 3.   On 26th  August, 1991, 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-acceptance  by  the  French Bank. 4.   It appears  that the Buyer, namely, M/s STE Kolori went under liquidation  and an order was passed by the Commercial Court at  Lyon, France  for winding  up the  firm. The Court also appointed  a Liquidator  who wrote to the respondent to file its claim. 5.   On 1st  January, 1992,  Napean Sea  Rood Branch  of the appellant at  Bombay wrote  a letter to the French Bank that payment of  the Bills  of Exchange  forwarded to  it earlier may be  made. The French Bank wrote on 9.1.92 that the Bills

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 23  

of Exchange  had not  been  paid  as  the  Buyer  was  under liquidation. The Bank also, during course of correspondence, wrote that  under French Law, co-acceptance by the Bank, was not permissible  nor would it have given the Bank Guarantee, even if  a request  was made in that regard by the appellant for and  on behalf of the respondent. It was, at this stage, that respondent gave a notice dated 26.3.92 to the appellant claiming the  entire amounts  of the  Bills of  Exchange and subsequently filed  a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission  at  New  Delhi  (for  short, ’Commission’) claiming the value of the goods shipped to the Buyer at  France, from  the appellant. The Commission by its judgment and order dated 16.11.93 allowed the claim with the direction to  the appellant  to pay to the respondent French Francs 4,10,000/-  with interest  (in rupees) at the rate of 18% on  the rupee equivalent of the above amount with effect from 31st  December, 1989  together    with  a  sum  of  Rs. 10,000/- as  costs to  the respondent.  It was  against this judgment that  the claimant  filed,  in  this  Court,  Civil Appeal No.1737  of 1995.  The connected Civil Appeal No.1334 of 1995  has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.94 by  which the  Commission has  rejected the  Review Petition filed  by the  appellant.  Both  the  appeals  were admitted by  this Court on 20.2.95 and are being disposed of by this Judgment. 6.   It may  be stated  that the Commission, while decreeing the claim  of the  respondent, had  relied upon  the Uniform Rules for  Collection made  by the  International Chamber of Commerce as also the covering letter of the respondent dated 26th August,  1991 accompanying  the two  Bills of Exchange, which, according  to the  Commission, on  the  face  of  it, indicated that  co-acceptance of  the French  Bank had to be obtained and since the appellant, while forwarding the Bills of Exchange  to the  French Bank,  had not  indicated in its letter that  the Bills  had also  to be  co-accepted by  the French Bank,  it acted  negligently. This  omission was also treated by the Commission as deficiency in service. 7.   Review of  this judgment was sought by the appellant on the ground  that the  respondent’s letter dated 26th August, 1991 accompanying the Bills of Exchange did not mention that co-acceptance of  the French Bank had to be obtained. It was pointed out  to the  Commission that  the letter  dated 26th August,  1991   which  was  placed  on  the  record  by  the respondent and in which a specific mention was made that co- acceptance from French Bank had to be obtained, was a letter forged by  the respondent  to obtain a decree in its favour. The appellant contended that this letter was never issued to the appellant.  The letter  dated 26.8.91 which was actually issued to  them did  not contain any direction for obtaining co-acceptance by  the French  Bank. The  Commission  in  its judgment   dated   13.12.94   (disposing   of   the   review application)  has   considered  both  the  letters  and  has reproduced the  contents thereof  but it did not go into the question whether  the letter  filed by  the respondent was a forged letter or not. 8.   The relevant  portion of  the findings  recorded by the Commission in  its judgment passed on the review application is quoted below :-      " The  Opposite Party  - Bank - has      alleged that  the  letter  of  26th      August, 1991  from the  Complainant      to the  Opposite Party - Bank which      was the letter with which the Bills      of Exchange  were submitted  to the      Opposite  Party   -  Bank   -   for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 23  

    collection,  did  not  specifically      direct  the   Bank  to  secure  co-      acceptance of the Bills of Exchange      by the  French Bank.  The  Opposite      Party - Bank - has alleged that the      letter   of   26th   August,   1991      submitted as  Annexure ’A’  to  the      Complaint petition  bearing No.2776      was not  the true  letter  sent  by      Complainant;  it  is  a  forgery  &      fabrication. The true letter of the      same date  (i.e. 26th August, 1991)      was No.2775  which was the covering      letter of  Bills  of  Exchange  and      this letter  did  not  contain  the      material instructions regarding co-      acceptance by  the French Bank. For      facility  the   two   letters   are      reproduced below :      (i)  Letter No.2776 of 26th August,      1991 from  the Complainant  to  the      Opposite Party - Bank:      "We   refer   your   letter   dated      14.8.1991 informing us about return      of  documents  Nos.  0005207  (FOBC      17794) and 0005208 (FOBC 17795) for      Rs.   3,50,000   and   FF   87,000/      respectively.      In this connection we are enclosing      fresh sets  of  Bills  of  Exchange      with a  request to kindly represent      the documents  immediately  to  our      buyer    through     M/s    Societe      Lyonnaise De  Banque, Lyon, France.      Kindly  note   that  the  Bills  of      Exchange have to be accepted by our      buyer and  co-accepted by  the bank      viz; Societe  Lyonnaise  De  Banque      for payment on 31.12.1991."      (ii)  The  letter No.2775  of  26th      August, 1991  from the  Complainant      to the Opposite Party Bank:      "We   refer   your   letter   dated      14.8.1991 informing us about return      of  documents   Nos.0005207   (FOBC      17794) and 0005208 (FOBC 17795) for      Rs.3,50,000   and    FF    87,000/-      respectively.      In   this    connection,   we   are      enclosing fresh sets of Drafts with      a request  to kindly  represent the      documents immediately  to our buyer      through M/s.  Societe Lyonnaise  De      Banque, Lyon, France."           It will  be noticed  from  the      letters reproduced  above that  the      material instruction  regarding co-      acceptance of the Bills of Exchange      by the French Bank is absent in the      letter  No.2775   whereas   it   is      specifically recorded in the letter      No.2776. According  to the Opposite      Party -  Bank -  the letter of 26th      August No.2776 is a forgery created      by the  Complainant for the purpose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 23  

    of this  case. During  the  hearing      there was  considerable  effort  on      the part of the Opposite Party-Bank      - to  prove that the letter No.2776      was never  issued and this has been      forged to  support the  case of the      Complainant whereas the Complainant      vehemently maintained that this was      a genuine letter and that there was      evidence to support its contention.      We did not think it necessary to go      into this question. We only pointed      out to  the Complainant that in the      ordinary course  of correspondence,      in  its   letter  of   No.2776  the      Complainant should have stated that      this was  in  continuation  of  its      previous letter  No.2775  and  that      the letter No.2776 was necessitated      by  the   omission  in  the  letter      No.2775  of  the  vital  directions      regarding  co-acceptance   of   the      Bills of Exchange. We did not get a      satisfactory   answer    to    this      question.           We have  also once  again gone      through the  records of  the  case,      the oral  arguments and the written      submission made  by the  parties at      the  rehearing   limited   to   the      question  of   the  letter  No.2776      being a  forgery and  its effect on      the findings corded in the order of      this Commission  of 16th  November,      1993.           It will  be observed  from the      order that  the Bills  of  Exchange      clearly  specified  that  the  same      were  to   be  co-accepted  by  the      foreign bank besides being accepted      by the buying French Firm. In these      circumstances it  was the  duty  of      the Opposite  Party Bank  to ensure      co-acceptance by  the foreign Bank.      The responsibility  of the  Bank to      obtain co-acceptance  of the  Bills      of Exchange  is also  manifest from      the Rules  of Collection  laid down      by  the  International  Chamber  of      Commerce. As the collecting bank on      behalf     of      its     customer      (Complainant) who had entrusted the      task  of  collection  of  Bills  of      Exchange to it the Opposite Party -      Bank, the latter is responsible for      seeing that  the form of acceptance      of Bills  of Exchange  is  complete      and correct.           The Rules  require  that  "all      documents sent  for collection must      be accompanied  by collection order      which is  to be made by the Bank in      accordance with the instructions of      the client or the principal.           The   instructions   for   co-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 23  

    acceptance by  the foreign  bank on      the Bills  of Exchange  were  clear      and unambiguous and as such even if      we  ignore   the  covering   letter      No.2776 of  26th August,  1991 said      to   have    been   sent   by   the      Complainant  to  the  Bank  on  the      ground  that   this  is   a  forged      document, it  will not  affect  the      decision already  arrived at in any      manner. 9.   As pointed  out earlier,  the Commission did not decide the question  whether the  letter dated  26th August,  1991, filed by the respondent was a forged letter as it was of the opinion that  even if  both the  letters, namely, the letter filed by the appellant in Review Petition as also the letter filed by  the respondent  in the  original proceedings, were ignored, the  appellant was  still under a liability to have mentioned in  its lener to the French Bank to whom the Bills of Exchange were forwarded, that the French Bank had also to co-accept the  Bills before  delivering the documents to the Buyer as  the respondent  had  specifically  mentioned  this requirement in  the Bills of Exchange drawn on and addressed to  M/s  STE  Kolori  and  their  Bankers,  namely,  Societe Lyonnaise De  Banque, Lyon,  France. This  finding, like the findings recorded by the Commission in its original judgment dated 16.11.93,  is based  on the  interpretation of certain Clauses  of  the  Rules  of  the  International  Chamber  of Commerce. 10.  There are  two Banks,  namely, the  Indian Bank, Bombay (appellant)  through   whom  the   Bills  of  Exchange  were forwarded and  the French Bank, namely, Societe Lyonnaise De Banque, Foreign  Department, Lyon, France for payment. It is not disputed  that the  Banks had  to act in accordance with the Uniform  Rules for  Collection made by the International Chamber of  Commerce (hereinafter referred to as ICC Rules). The extent  of liability,  default, negligence or deficiency in service,  on the  part of  either  or  the  Banks  would, Therefore, depend on a correct reading and interpretation of the ICC  Rules which,  we unhesitantly  say, at  the outset, were  misread,   misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  by  the Commission. 11.  Clause B  of the  ICC Rules  which came into force with effect from  January l,  1979 contains  Definitions some  of which (which  are relevant  for this  case)  are  reproduced below :-      "1. (i)   "Collection"  means   the      handling by  banks’on  instructions      received of documents as defined in      (ii) below,  in order  to a) obtain      acceptance and/or,  as the case may      be,   payment,    or   b)   deliver      commercial    documents     against      acceptance and/or,  as the case may      be, against  payment, or c) deliver      documents  on   other   terms   and      conditions.           (ii) "Documents"         means      financial     documents      and/or      commercial documents:           (a)  "financial     documents"      means bills of exchange, promissory      notes, cheques, payment receipts or      other similar  instruments used for      obtaining the payment of money;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 23  

         (b)  "Commercial    documents’      means invoices, shipping documents,      documents of title or other similar      documents, or  any other documents,      whatsoever,  not   being  financial      documents.      2.   The "parties thereto" are :      (i)  the  "principal"  who  is  the      customer entrusting  the  operation      of collection to his bank;      (ii) the "remitting  bank" which is      the bank to which the principal has      entrusted    the    operation    of      collection;      (iii)     the   "collecting   bank"      which is  any bank,  other than the      remitting   bank,    involved    in      processing the collection order;      (iv)  the  "presenting bank’  which      is  the   collecting  bank   making      presentation to the drawee.      3.   The "drawee"  is  the  one  to      whom presentation  is  to  be  made      according to the collection order."      Clause C provides as under :-      "All documents  sent for collection      must be accompanied by a collection      order giving  complete and  precise      instructions.   Banks    are   only      permitted   to    act   upon    the      instructions    given    in    such      collection order, and in accordance      with these Rules.           If any  bank cannot.  for  any      reason.     comply     with     the      instructions    given     in    the      collection order received by it, it      must immediately  advise the  party      from   whom    it   received    the      collection order."      Article 2,  3 as  also  Article  15      provide as under:-      "Article 2           Banks  must  verify  that  the      documents received  appear to be as      listed in  the collection order and      must immediately  advise the  party      from whom  the collection order was      received of any documents missing.           Banks    have    no    further      obligation    to     examine    the      documents.      Article 3           For  the   purpose  of  giving      effect to  the Instructions  of the      principal, the  remitting bank will      utilise as the collecting bank:      (i)  the collecting  bank nominated      by     the  principal,  or  in  the      absence of such nomination,      (ii) any  bank,   of  its   own  or      another  bank’s   choice   in   the      country of  payment or  acceptance,      as the case may be.           The    documents    and    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 23  

    collection order may be sent to the      collecting bank directly or through      another bank as intermediary.           Banks utilising  the  services      of other  banks tor  the purpose of      giving effect  to the  instructions      of the  principal  do  so  for  the      account of  and at  the risk of the      latter.           The principal  shall be  bound      by  and  liable  to  indemnify  the      banks against  all  obligations and      responsibilities imposed by foreign      laws or usages.      Article 15           The   presenting    bank    is      responsible  for  seeing  that  the      form of the acceptance of a bill of      exchange appears to be complete and      correct, but is not responsible for      the genuineness of any signature or      for the  authority of any signatory      to sign the acceptance. 12.  Clauses 2  and 3 specify the parties to the transaction for purpose of "Collection" as defined in Sub-clause 1(i) of Clause B. These parties are the "Principal" who entrusts the operation of  "Collection" to his Bank. This, in the instant case, 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 "Collecting Bank". According to the definition, this would be a Bank other than the "Remitting  Bank". There  is, yet, a third Bank, namely, the "Presenting  Bank" which,  according to  the definition, is, in  fact, the  "Collecting Bank"  making presentation to the "Drawee".  "Drawee" has  been defined in Sub-clause 3 of Clause  8  as  the  person  to  whom  presentation  is  made according  to   the  collection   order.  Although,  in  the definition, there  are three  banks, namely,  the "Remitting Bank", the  "Collecting Bank" and the "Presenting Bank", the identity of  "Collecting Bank"  and the "Presenting Bank" is the same  as the  "Collecting Bank"  not only  collects  the documents from  the "Remitting Bank", it also presents those documents to  the "Drawee" for payment. The "Remitting Bank" cannot be  the "Collecting Bank" or the "Presenting Bank" as the "Collecting Bank" has been defined in the ICC Rules as a Bank OTHER THAN THE REMITTING BANK". 13.  Clause  C   which  has  already  been  extracted  above requires that  the documents  sent for  "Collection" must be accompanied by  a collection order. The collection order has to contain complete and precise instructions so as to enable the  Bank   to  act  in  accordance  with  the  instructions contained in the collection order and in accordance with the ICC Rules.  This will  also be  clear from the definition of "Collection" as  set out  in Sub-clause  1(i) of  Clause  B, which  means   "the  handling   by  Banks,  ON  INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED, of  documents", which  are either  "Commercial  or Financial" as  defined in  Sub-clause (ii)(a)  and (b).  The definition of  "Financial Documents"  also includes Files of Exchange. The words "for the purpose of giving effect to the INSTRUCTIONS OF  THE PRINCIPAL"  occurring in Article 3 also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 23  

make it  clear that  the Principal  has to give instructions separately (in  addition to  the documents) to the Remitting Bank  to  .  enable  it  to  instruct  the  Collecting  Bank accordingly. 14.  "Acceptance"  is   dealt  with   in  Article  15  which indicates that the responsibility of seeing that the Bill of Exchange is  accepted, completely  and correctly, is that of the "Presenting Bank". 15.  The Commission, while disposing of the complaint of the respondent by  its original  order dated  16.11.93, had held that not  only the  Bill of  Exchange but  the covering note accompanying those Bills clearly indicated that the Bill was to be  accepted by  the Buyer and co-accepted by the Foreign Bank. It, then, proceeded to say as under:-      "The Rules for Collection laid down      by  the  International  Chamber  of      Commerce leave  no room  for  doubt      that as  per Article  3 of the said      Rules, for  giving  effect  to  the      instructions  of   the   principal,      i.e., the  customer entrusting  the      operation  of   collection  to  his      Bank, the  remitting bank (viz. the      Bank to  which  the  principal  has      entrusted    the    operation    of      collection) is the collecting Bank.      As observed  earlier, under Article      15 it  is the presenting Bank which      is responsible  for seeing that the      form of  acceptance of  a  Bill  of      Exchange appears to be complete and      correct.  Under   Item  C  "General      Provisions and  Divisions"  of  the      above Rules "All documents sent for      collection must be accompanied by a      collection order  which has  to  be      made by the Bank in accordance with      the instructions  of the  client or      the principal".  The opposite party      Bank failed to do so. We reject its      plea that it was not responsible to      obtain  the  co-acceptance  of  the      Bank and there was no deficiency of      service on its part." 16.  A mere perusal of the above passage of the Commission’s judgment indicates  that the  Commission fell into a serious error in  treating the  "Remitting Bank"  as the "Collecting Bank" and,  then, fastening  liability on  the appellant  by observing that  the appellant  had not  acted in  accordance with Article  15 of  the ICC  Rules under  which it  was the responsibility of  the "Presenting  Bank" to  see  that  the "Documents"   were   accepted   in   accordance   with   the instructions of the "Principal". The Commission thus treated appellant not  only as  the "Remitting Bank" but also as the "Collecting  Bank"   and  ’Presenting  Bank"  which  is  not permissible as the identity of "Remitting Bank" is different and distinct  from that  of the "Collecting Bank" and/or the "Presenting Bank". 17.  As pointed  out  earlier,  the  main  judgment  of  the Commission is  based on  the ground  that there  was  letter dated 26.8.91  which  contained  specific  instruction  that there had to be co-acceptance by the Foreign Bank. 18.  As against  this. there  is, admittedly, another letter of 26th  August, 1991  from the  respondent to the appellant which does  not contain  this instruction.  When this letter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 23  

was filed before the Commission and a review of the judgment was sought  on the  ground that  the letter  containing  the instruction for  obtaining co-acceptance  of the French Bank was never  issued to  the appellant and that the only letter issued on that date was the letter in which this instruction was not  mentioned, the  Commission, instead of deciding the controversy as  to whether  the other  letter relied upon by the respondent was, at all, sent or issued to the appellant, proceeded to  decide the controversy on the ground that even if no  such letter  was issued,  the recital  in the Bill of Exchange about  co-acceptance by  the French Bank was enough and the  appellant having  not acted in terms of the Bill of Exchange and  having not  obtained the  co-acceptance of the French Bank,  was liable to pay to the respondent the entire price of  the goods  supplied  to  the  Buyer  to  whom  the documents  would   not  have  been  delivered  had  it  been mentioned that before delivering the documents to the Buyer, co-acceptance by  the French  Bank was necessary, as in that event, the  documents   would have  been either returned, as was done  on previous  occasions, or  the French  Bank would have given co-acceptance and thus made payment of the entire amount to the respondent. 19.  In view  of the  findings recorded by us that under the ICC Rules,  it is  the responsibility  of the "Principal" to give or  send specific  and precise instructions to the Bank besides  sending   the   "Commercial/Financial   Documents", Commission was  under a  duty to  decide as  to whether  the appellant had  issued the  letter containing the requirement of co-acceptance  by the  French Bank.  The Commission could not legally  avoid to  decide this  question particularly as the appellant  had contended  before the Commission that the letter  No.2776   of  26th   August,  1991  was  forged  and fabricated by the respondent and that the only letter issued by the  respondent was  letter No.2775  dated  26th  August, 1991. The  contents of  both the  letters have  already been reproduced by  the Commission  in its  judgment by which the review application has been disposed of which would indicate that in  the letter  No.2775, there  is  no  requirement  to obtain co-acceptance by the French Bank whereas in the other letter, namely,  letter No.2776,  this  condition  has  been specifically mentioned. 20.  By filing  letter No.2775  of 26.8.91  along  with  the Review  Petition  and  contending  that  the  other  letter, namely, letter  No.2776 of  the even date, was never written or issued  by the respondent, the appellant, in fact, raised the plea  before the  Commission  that  its  judgment  dated 16.11.93, which  was based  on letter No. 2776, was obtained by the  respondent by  practising  fraud  not  only  on  the appellant but  on the Commission too as letter No.2776 dated 26.8.91 was forged by the respondent for the purpose of this case. This  plea could  not have been legally ignored by the Commission which  needs to be reminded that the Authorities, be they  Constitutional, Statutory  or Administrative,  (and particularly those  who have  to decide  a lis)  possess the power to  recall their  judgments  or  orders  if  they  are obtained by  fraud as Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et  jus nunquam  cohabitant). It  has been repeatedly said that Fraud and deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). 21.  In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council (1956) AC 736, the  House of Lords held that the effect of fraud would normally be  to vitiate  any act or order. order obtained by fraud practised  upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled  by a  party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices  a party,  the Court has the inherent power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 23  

to recall  its order.  (See:  Benoy  Krishna  Mukherjee  vs. Mohanlal Goenka  AIR 1950  Cal. 287; Gajanand Sha & Ors. vs. Dayanand Thakur AIR 1943 Patna 127; Krishna Kumar vs. Jawand Singh AIR  1947 Nagpur  236; Devendra  Nath Sarkar  vs.  Ram Rachpal Singh  ILR (1926) 1 Lucknow 341 = AIR 1926 Oudh 315; Saiyed Muhammad  Raza vs.  Ram Saroop  & Ors.  ILR (1929)  4 Lucknow 562  = AIR  1929 Oudh  385 (FB); Bankey Behari Lal & Anr. vs.  Abdul Rahman & Ors. ILR (1932) 7 Lucknow 350 = AIR 1932 Oudh  63; Lekshmi  Amma Chacki  Amma vs. Mammen Mammen, 1955 Kerala  Law Times 459.) The Court has also the inherent power to  set aside  a sale brought about by fraud practised upon the  Court (Ishwar  Mahton &  Anr. vs.  Sitaram Kumar & Ors. AIR 1954 Patna 450) or to set aside the order recording compromise obtained by fraud. (Bindeshwari  Pd.Chaudhary vs. Debendra Pd.  Singh & Ors. AIR 1958 Patna 618; Smt. Tara Bai vs. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao AIR 1985 Karnataka 270). 24.  We may  now turn to the next and allied questions; what is forgery,  whether forgery  is a  fraud and whether in the instant case, forgery and fraud are proved? 25.  Forgery has  its origin  in the  French word  "Forger", which signifies:      "to frame or fashion a thing as the      smith  doth   his  worke  upon  the      anvill. And  it is  used in our law      for  the   fraudulant  making   and      publishing of  false   writings  to      the prejudice of another mans right      (Termes  de   la   Ley)   (Stroud’s      judicial Dictionary,  Fifth Edition      Vol. 2). 26.  In  Webst   Comprehensive.  Dicitionary,  International Edition, "Forgery’ is defined as :      "The  act   of  falsely  making  or      materially   altering. with  intent      to defraud;  any  writing which, if      genuine, might be of legal efficacy      or  the   foundation  of   a  legal      liability." 27.  This Definition was adopted in Rembert vs. State 25 Am. Rep. 639.  In another  case, namely, State vs. Phelps 34 Am. Dec. 672,  it was laid down that forgery is the false making of any  written instrument,  for the  purpose  of  fraud  or deceit. This  decision appears to be based on the meaning of forgery as set out in Tomlin’s Law Dictionary. 28.  From the  above, it  would be  seen that   fraud  is an essential ingredient of forgery. 29.  Forgery under  the Indian   Penal  Code is  an  offence which has  been defined  in   Section 463, while Section 464 deals with  the making  of a   false  document. Section  465 deals with   the  making of  a  false document. Section  465 prescribes punishment  for  forgery.  "Forged  document"  is defined in   Section  470 while  Section 471 deals  with the crime of using as genuine, the  forged document. 30.  Forgery and  Fraud are essentially  matters of evidence which could  be proved  as a  fact by  direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. 31.  The Privy  Council in  Satish  Chandra  Chatterjee  vs. Kumar Satish  Kantha Roy & Ors. Air 1923 PC 73, laid down as under:      "Charges  of  fraud  and  collusion      like those  contained in the plaint      in this  case must,  no  doubt,  be      proved by  those  who  made  them--      proved  by   established  facts   r      inferences legitimately  drawn from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 23  

    those facts  taken  together  as  a      whole. Suspicions  and surmises and      conjecture  are   not   permissible      substitutes  for   those  facts  or      those inferences,  but that  by  no      means requires  that every puzzling      artifice or contrivance resorted to      by  one   accused  or   fraud  must      necessarily      be      completely      unravelled and  cleared up and made      plain  before   a  verdict  can  be      properly found against him. If this      were  not  so  many  a  clever  and      dexterous knave would escape. 32.  The above principle will apply not only to court of law but also  to statutory tribunals which, like the Commission, are conferred  power to  record evidence by applying certain provisions of  the Code  of Civil  Procedure  including  the power to  enforce attendance  of the  witnesses and are also given the  power to  receive  evidence  on  affidavits.  The Commission under  the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 decides the dispute  by following the procedure indicated in Section 22 read with Section 13(iv) and (v) of the Act. 33.  Sub-section (iv)  of Section  13 which  has  been  made applicable to  the proceeding before the Commission lay down to the  proceeding before  the Commission  lay down  that it shall have  the same  powers as  are vested in a Civil Court under the  Code Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-      (i)  the  summoning  and  enforcing      the attendance  of any defendant or      witness and  examining the  witness      on oath;      (ii) the  discovery and  production      of any  document and  production of      any  document   of  other  material      object producible as evidence:      (iii) the  reception of evidence on      affidavits.      (iv) ------------------------------      ------      (v) issuing  of any  commission for      the examination of any witness; and      (vi) ------------------------------      --      The commission  has, thus,  jurisdiction  not  only  to examine a  witness on  oath but  also to receive evidence in the form of affidavits. 34.  The parties,  in the  instant case,  have  filed  their affidavits annexing  therewith a  host of  documents.  These affidavits and  documents were  treated as  evidence in  the case. It  was on  the basis  of this  evidence that the main case, as  also the  Review Petition,  were  decided  by  the Commission. 35.  Since the  evidence of the parties is already on record and all  vital facts  either stand  admitted or  proved,  we proceed now  to  consider  whether  forgery  and  fraud  are established. This  we are  doing in  view of  the facts  and circumstances of  this case  otherwise we  would have either remanded  the   case  to  the  Commission  or  directed  the respondent toe approach the Civil Court. 36.  Paragraphs 2,  3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Review Application filed by the appellant before the Commission are as under:      "2.  In  brief,  the  case  of  the      complainant  before   this  Hon’ble

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 23  

    Commission was  that it  had by its      letter of  the 26th  August,  1991,      which letter  enclosed the bills of      exchange in question, gave specific      instruction to the Opposite Party -      -- the  Bank --  for securing a co-      acceptance by  Societe Lyonnaise de      Banque  (the  French  Bank)  before      handing over the documents of title      to  the   goods.  Based  upon  this      letter, the  veracity of  which was      not questioned y the Opposite Party      at that  stage in the circumstances      indicated hereinafter, this Hon’ble      Commission was pleased to hold that      the Opposite  Party was responsible      for   not    carrying    out    the      instructions   contained   in   the      letter  dated  26th  August,  1991,      (Exhibit A  to the  Complaint)  and      thereby liable in damages caused to      the Complainant. It is correct that      the  complainant had annexed a copy      of the  letter dated  26th  August,      1991   with    this    Complainant.      However, the  Opposite  Party-  the      bank failed  to  notice  that  this      letter so  annexed was not the same      as the  letter on  26.8.1991  as  a      covering,  however   with  a  vital      difference that  the  body  of  the      letter did not contain the material      instruction regarding co-acceptance      by the French Bank.      3.   The  letter   produced  before      this Hon’ble  commission bears  the      same date  as the  letter  actually      given to  the Bank purports to be a      covering latter  (as also  was  the      letter given to the Bank) and bears      a reference  No. 2776  the Bank  is      2775.   Due   to   these   apparent      similarities, whilst drawing up the      pleadings    of     the    material      alterations made to the contents of      the letter  were over  looked.  The      Opposite  Party   states  that  the      letter  as   produced  before  this      Hon’ble Commission  was not  a true      copy of  the letter  given  to  the      Bank.      4.   One of  the reasons  why  this      lapse occurred  is because the true      significance  and   import  of  the      letter  was   not  understood   and      appreciated. After receiving a copy      of  the   order  of   this  Hon’ble      Commission, it  was found  that the      whole case  had turned  against the      bank based  upon the  letter of the      Complainant  produced   before  the      Commission. It  is thereafter  when      the copy  of the  letter  which  is      with the  Bank was  perused, it was      found  that  there  is  a  material

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 23  

    variation between  that copy  which      was  given  to  the  Bank  and  its      purported  true   copy  which   was      produced by  the Complainant before      this Hon’ble  Commission.  However,      to eliminate  the possibility as to      whether, in  addition to the letter      given to the Bank bearing reference      No.  2775,  another  letter  having      reference No.  2776 of a same dated      was  also  given  to  the  Bank,  a      through  search  was  made  of  the      records of  the Bank  at the Napean      Sea  Road   and   other   connected      Branches including the head office.      The search  has revealed  that  the      Bank has  not received  the  letter      bearing reference  No. 2776 of 26th      August, 1991  the contents of which      are as  the purported copy produced      by  the   Complainant  before  this      Hon’ble Commission.  What was given      by the  complaint to  the Bank as a      covering letter  was a letter being      reference No. 2775, a copy of which      is annexed  hereto  and  marked  as      Annexure  I  and  the  original  of      which shall be produced at the time      of hearing.  Affidavit of  the then      manager   of    the   said   branch      confirming  that  the  said  letter      dated 26th  August, 1991 annexed as      Exhibit "A"  to the  Complaint  was      not received by the Bank is annexed      hereto and market Annexure "II".      5.   A perusal of this letter shows      that the  material instructions  in      relation to  co-acceptance  by  the      French  Bank  are  absent  in  this      letter.  The   Opposite  Party   is      advised to  stated that considering      the fact  that a  letter dated 26th      August, 1991, bearing REF:SF:E:2775      was given  as a  covering letter to      the Bank,  it is inconceivable that      a second  letter also as a covering      letter would  be given to the Bank.      The letter  of  26th  August,  1991      stated that  it  is  "....enclosing      fresh set of drafts....". There are      some  other  discrepancies  between      this letter and the letter produced      by the  Complainant,  as  hereafter      set out.      6.   The  Opposite   Party  further      submit that  the xerox  copy of the      purported  letter  produced  before      this  Hon’ble   Commission  by  the      Complainant purports  to  bear  and      initial on  the right-hand  side of      the  letter.   The  Opposite  Party      submits that this initial is not of      any of  the officials of the Napean      Sea Road  Branch of the bank at the      relevant time.  The Opposite  Party

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 23  

    is, therefore,  advised  to  submit      that  this   letter  is  a  forgery      created by  the Complainant for the      purpose of the present case."      37. The respondent filed a reply to      the Review Application in paragraph      4 by which he stated as under:      (a) The  Complainant by  its letter      dated  26th   August  1991  bearing      reference No.SF:  E: 2775 forwarded      to the Opponent fresh set of Drafts      with a  request to  present the aid      documents to  the huyer  (vis.  M/s      STE Kolori)  through  M/s.  Societe      Lyonnaise De  Banque, lyon, France.      The copy  of the  said letter which      is on  the file  of the said letter      which  is   on  the   file  of  the      Complainant is  annexed hereto  tan      market Exhibit ’A’.      (b)  The  said  letter  dated  26th      August 1991  bearing Reference  No.      EF:E: 2775  though delivered to the      Opponent, the  carbon copy  of  the      said  letter   available  with  the      Complainant,  does   not  bear  any      acknowledgement  of   receipt.  The      said letter  is also  mentioned  in      the Outward  Register maintained by      the Complainant. Hereto annexed and      market Exhibit ’B’ is a copy of the      relevant  page   of   the   Outward      Register of  the  Complainant.  The      Complainant craves  leave to  refer      to  and   rely  upon   the  Outward      Register maintained  by it  for the      relevant period when produced.      (c) After  the delivery of the said      letter  dated   26th  August   1991      bearing Reference  No.  SF:E:  2775      the Complainant  noticed  that  the      said letter  did  not  request  the      Opponent to  have the said Bills of      Exchange co-accepted by the Foreign      Bank  viz.   Societe  Lyonnaise  De      Banque,  Lyon,   France.   In   the      circumstances,   the    Complainant      immediately    addressed    another      letter to  the Opponent  also dated      26th August  1991 bearing Reference      No.SF:E:  2775  wherein  they  gave      specific   instructions    to   the      Opponent to  have to the said Bills      of Exchange  accepted by  the buyer      viz . M/s STE Klori and co-accepted      by the  Foreign Bank  viz.  Societe      Lyonnaise  De   Banque.  The   said      letter has  been annexed as Exhibit      ’A’ to the plaint and has also been      annexed hereto  as Exhibit ’C’. The      said letter  was delivered  to  the      Opponent and  the  same  bears  the      initials   of   the   persons   who      received the  said  letter  in  the      Opponent and  the  same  bears  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 23  

    intials of  the person who received      the  initials  of  the  person  who      received the said letter also bears      the rubber stamp of the Opponent.      (d)  The  said  letter  dated  26th      August 1991  bearing Reference  No.      SF:E: 2775 is also mentioned in the      Outward Register  maintained by the      Complainant.  Exhibit   ’B’  hereto      which is  the relevant  page of the      Outward Register not only shows the      entry of  the said  letter  bearing      Reference No.  SF:F: 2775  but also      the entry  of the  aforesaid letter      bearing SF:E: 2776.      (e)  From   the  aforesaid   it  is      evident that  there were to letters      both dated  26th August, 1991 which      were addressed  by the  Complainant      to the Opponent.      (f)  The   Complainant  says   that      pursuant  to   the  filing  of  the      original       complaint,       the      Complainant’s    Advocates     gave      inspection   of    the   documents,      referred to  and relied upon by the      Complainant,   to   the   Opponents      Advocate. The  said inspection  was      taken on  14th October, 1992 and at      the said  time the  carbon copy  of      the letter  dated 26th August, 1991      bearing Reference No.SF:E: 2776 was      inspected by  the  Opponents  Bank.      The fact  of the  inspection having      been taken has been recorded by the      Opponents Advocated in their letter      by the  dated  16th  October,  1992      which is  annexed hereto and marked      Exhibit ’D’.      (g)  The  Complainant  states  that      after the  said Review  Application      was served  upon  the  Complainant,      the Complainants Advocate addressed      a letter  dated 28th December, 1993      to the Opponents Advocates pointing      out   that    the    said    Review      Application was  totally false  and      misconceived inasmuch  as the  said      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing Reference No.SF:E: 2776 was      not a  fabricated letter  and  bore      the rubber stamp of the Opponent as      also the initials of the person who      received the  same in  the Opponent      Bank. The Complainants Advocates by      the said  letter also requested for      inspection of the letter dated 26th      August, 1991  bearing Reference No.      SF:E:2775 and  the Inward  Register      maintained by  the  Opponent  Bank.      Hereto annexed  and marked  Exhibit      ’E’  is   a  copy   of   the   said      Complainant’s   Advocates    letter      dated 28th December, 1993.      (h)   The    opponent   by    their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 23  

    Advocates’   letter    dated   20th      December, 1993  appointed time  for      inspection of  the said letter. The      Opponent  Advocates   by  the  said      letter  also   stated  that   their      client had  not  entered  the  said      letter      bearing       Reference      No.SF:E:2775   in    their   Inward      Register as  as the Inward Register      was  formerly  only  maintained  in      respect of registered letters which      were   entered    therein.   Hereto      annexed and market Exhibit ’F’ is a      copy  of   the  said   dated   29th      December, 1993.      (i)  Pursuant  to  the  appointment      fixed   in    that    regard    the      Complainant  and   their  Advocates      attended   the    Office   of   the      Opponents Advocates on 3rd January,      1994 and  took  inspection  of  the      said letter  dated SF:E;  2775. The      Complainant at  the said  time also      gave  inspection   of  the   carbon      copies  of   the   letter   bearing      Reference   No.    SF:E:2775    and      SF:E:2776 available  on the file of      the Complainant.  Inspection of the      Outward Register of the Complainant      was also  given to the Opponent and      its Advocates. The given and taking      of the said inspection was recorded      by the  Opponent Advocates in their      letter  dated   4th  January,  1994      (Exh. ’D’  hereto) and  also by the      Complainant  in   their   Advocates      letter  also   dated  4th  January,      1994.  Hereto  annexed  and  marked      Exhibit  ’G’   is  a  copy  of  the      aforesaid letter dated 4th January,      1994. 38.  Other relevant  paras of  the  respondent’s  reply  are paragraph 7 to 15. 39.  The Respondent’s  denial that  it  had  fabricated  the letter No.  2776 is also contained in various other paras of its reply. 40.  The  appellant   filed  a  rejoinder  affidavit  before Commission. Paras 3,7,12,21 are quoted below-      "3.  It  is   only   after   having      perused   the    Reply    of    the      Complainant that the Opposite Party      has  further   realised  that   the      Complainant has played a calculated      fraud with  an intention  to secure      an   order    from   this   Hon’ble      Commission. the Complainant has all      along  played   a  fraud   on  this      Hon’ble  Commission  in  making  it      believe that  the Bills of Exchange      have been  forwarded by the alleged      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing No. 2776 annexed as Exhibit      "A" to  the Complaint.  Having  now      read the  tenor  of  the  Reply  of      Complainant, the Opposite party has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 23  

    realised that  the Complainant  has      with   mischievous   and   malafide      intent in its pleadings before this      Hon’ble Commission cleverly avoided      making reference  to the  different      letters said to have been delivered      to  the   Opposite  Party  and  the      aforesaid fact is clear and evident      by the  language of  he  pleadings.      The Opposite  Party further submits      that after  going through  the said      reply  of   the  complaint  to  the      Review Petition  it has become very      clear  that   the  Complainant  has      deliberately played a fraud and now      put forward  a false  case  in  the      said reply  to  further  perpetrate      the said  fraud. The Opposite Party      submits the    letter  bearing  No.      2775 dated  26th August,  1991  and      the said  letter bearing  No.  2776      dated  26th   August,  1991,   both      purport to  enclose   therewith set      of Bills  of  Exchange.  It  is  an      admitted position that only one set      of Bills  were  forwarded  for  the      purpose of  forwarding the  same to      the   foreign    party   for    its      acceptance.  The   fact  that  both      letters  set   out  that  Bills  of      Exchanges are  forwarded  therewith      itself indicates that they were not      meant for  substitution.  Even  the      language of both letters belies the      false case  of substitution now put      up by  the complainant.  It is thus      clear  that   the  Complainant  has      misguided this  Hon’ble  Commission      by relying  upon a  letter  bearing      ref. No.  2776 dated  26th  August,      1991 purporting  to suggest that by      the said  letter, the said Bills of      Exchange  were  forwarded  for  the      purpose of  acceptance, whereas  in      fact the  said letter  bearing  No.      2776 dated  26th August,  1991  was      never  received   by  the  Opposite      party.      7.   With  reference  to  paragraph      4(c)  of   the  said   Reply,   the      Opposite Party  denies  that  after      delivery of  the said  letter dated      26th August  delivery of  the  said      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing No.  2775  the  Complainant      noticed that  the said  letter  did      not  contain  a  request  to    the      Opposite party  to  have  the  said      Bills of  Exchange  co-accepted  by      the  foreign   Bank  and  therefore      addressed  another  letter  to  the      Opposite  Party   also  dated  26th      August,  1991   bearing  NO.   2776      wherein   the    complainant   give      specific   instructions    to   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 23  

    Opposite party  to  have  the  said      Bills of  Exchange accepted  by the      Buyer  and   co-accepted   by   the      foreign Bank.  The  Opposite  Party      says and  submits that  the alleged      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing No.  2776  is  not  genuine      letter. The  Opposite Party  craves      leave  to   refer  to  the  Outward      Register  allegedly  maintained  by      the complainant, when produced. The      Opposite  party  submits  that  the      Outward Register  maintained by the      Complainant does  not appear  to be      genuine  Outward  Register  as  the      same   has    entries    containing      references to  letters of  a  later      date bearing   outward number of an      earlier date.  The  Opposite  Party      says and  commits that  no reliance      can be placed upon the said alleged      Outward Register  alleged  to  have      been maintained by the Complainant.      The opposite party says and submits      that the  alleged initials  of  the      person who  received he said letter      is   not   initial   led   by   any      officer/staff member of Indian Bank      working in  its  Nepean  Seas  Road      Branch at  the relevant  time.  The      Opposite Party  says that  prior to      the   filling    of   the    Review      Application  the   Opposite   Party      obtained  verification   from   the      officers and staff members attached      to the  Nepean Sea  Road Branch  of      the Opposite  Party  who  certified      and stated that the alleged initial      on the  alleged office  copy of the      Complainant is  not their  initial.      The  Opposite   Party  states   and      submits that  the mere  fact that a      rubber stamp appears on the alleged      letter cannot  be itself confer any      authenticity. It  is  pertinent  to      note  that   the  Complainant   has      obtained and alleged acknowledgment      on the  officer copy of the alleged      letter  26th   Aug.  1991   bearing      reference No. 2776 when, in fact no      such letter  was delivered  by  the      Complainant to  the Opposite Party.      It is  further  pertinent  to  note      that the  Complainant did not think      it fit  or necessary  to obtain any      acknowledgement on  office copy  of      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing No.  2775 when the original      documents   i.e.   the   Bills   of      Exchange  were   delivered  to  the      Opposite Party  therewith  but  the      complainant has  allegedly obtained      and acknowledgement  on the alleged      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing No. 2776. Copy of Statement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 23  

    signed by  the Officers  and  staff      members  at  the  Nepean  Sea  Road      Branch  of   the   Opposite   Party      certifying   that    the    alleged      initials   on    the   on   alleged      acknowledgement does  not belong to      any of  them in  hereto annexed and      marked Annex "I".      12.  With reference  to paragraph 7      of the  said  Reply,  the  Opposite      Party denies  the contention of the      Complainant that  the letter  dated      26th August,  1991 bearing No. 2775      was   not    disclosed    by    the      Complainant  before   this  Hon’ble      Commission as  the said  letter was      substituted by  the alleged  or  at      all.  The  Opposite  Party  submits      that it  is for the first time that      the   Complainant    has    pleaded      substitution.    This    plea    of      substitution has  been pleaded only      after the  fraud has  been detected      by the  Opposite Party  and brought      to  the   notice  of  this  Hon’ble      Commission.   If    the   plea   of      substitution is to be believed, the      Complainant  would  have  withdrawn      the letter  dated 26th August, 1991      bearing No.  2775 at  that point of      time itself  since the  Complainant      had taken  no  acknowledgement  for      the same. The Opposite Party denies      the contention  of the  Complainant      that the nondisclosure was not with      a view  to suppressing information,      as  alleged   or   otherwise.   The      Opposite Party  further denies  the      contention of  the Complainant that      the nondisclosure  was  inadvertent      as alleged  at  all.  The  Opposite      Party states that the second letter      dated 26th August, 1991 bearing No.      2776 was  never  delivered  by  the      Complainant to the Opposite Party.      15.  With reference to paragraph 10      of the  said  Reply,  the  opposite      party states  that it  is pertinent      to note  that  despite  Complainant      having  accepted   the  fact   that      letter  dated   26th  August,  1991      bearing No.  2775 was  addressed to      the Opposite Party and the Opposite      Party would act on the instructions      contained therein.  The Complainant      ought to have drawn refernce to the      letter No.  2775, if  assuming with      out  admitting   that  the  alleged      letter  No.   2776  was   in   fact      delivered.   The   Opposite   Party      states that,  it is admitted by the      Complainant that  the  two  letters      both  dated   26th   August,   1991      bearing  Nos.  2775  and  2776  are      materially  different   from   each

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 23  

    other. The  Opposite  Party  states      that  the   Complainant   has   not      explained in any part of the replay      as to what warranted the submission      of the  alleged letter  dated  26th      August, 1991  bearing No.  2776  on      the same  dated after submission of      a letter  on the same subject, also      dated 26th August, 1991 bearing No.      2775  without   providing  for  any      reference to  the earlier letter or      without making  any  mention  about      the  submission   of  the   earlier      letter to  the Opposite  Party. The      Opposite  Party  submits  that  the      absence of  continuity of reference      to the  earlier  letter  cannot  be      termed as  an omission, as alleged,      by  the  Complainant,  particularly      who, according  to the  Complainant      itself   the   second   letter   is      intended to  be substitution of the      contents of the earlier letter.      21.  With reference to paragraph 21      to 24  of the  said  Reply,  it  is      pertinent   to    note   that   the      Complainant    says     tat     the      Complainant was willing to have the      goods delivered  to the  Buyer  not      only letter acceptance of the Bills      of Exchange  by the  Buyer but also      co-acceptance by  the foreign bank.      The Complainant  has, till  date no      brought  to   the  notice   of  the      Opposite Party  and/or this Hon’ble      Commission   the   basis   of   the      aforesaid statement,  as to whether      there is  any agreement between the      complainant and  the foreign Buyer,      or the  Complainant and the foreign      bank for co-acceptance. There is no      documentary or any evidence brought      in by  the Complainant  to show any      alleged contract for co-acceptance.      In the  absence of the foreign bank      being   party    to   the   present      proceedings, the  statement of  the      Complainant  that  the  Complainant      was willing  to sell the goods only      if there  was co-acceptance, is not      sustainable and cannot be believed.      The Opposite Party says and submits      that the  history  of  the  present      transaction between the complainant      and  the  foreign  buyer  indicates      that the goods were already shipped      in  June,   1990   prior   to   the      forwarding of the said Bills of the      Exchange for  acceptance in August,      1991.  The  Opposite  Party  denies      that the  Opposite Party  has  been      negligent  in  that  the  Bills  of      Exchange are  to be accepted as per      tenor  of   the   instrument.   The      Opposite  Party   denies  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 23  

    Complainant in  entitled to sue the      Opposite Party and recover from the      Opposite Party  the amount of Bills      of  Exchange   with  interest,   as      alleged or  otherwise. The Opposite      Party  says  that  the  only  claim      which  the   Complainant   has   is      against the  foreign Buyer and / or      foreign bank  and not  against  the      Opposite  Party.   It  is   foreign      pertinent   to    note   that   the      Complainant states that there in no      privity  of  contract  between  the      foreign bank  and the  Complainant.      If the aforesaid statement is to be      believed, then  the question of the      foreign bank  being required to co-      accept the Bills of Exchange cannot      and does arise." 41.  We  have   also  gone   through  other  affidavits  and documents,  filed   either  in  this  Court  or  before  the Commission, which have been brought on record here. 42.  We must  say immediately  that the circumstance, in the instant  case,   are  glaring  and  the  intrinsic  evidence available on  the record  is clinching,  so much so, that no other inference  is possible  except to hold that the letter No. 2776  of 26th  August, 1991 was forged by the respondent in order  to obtain  a decree from the Commission for a huge amount of French Francs 4,10,000/- It will appear that -      (i) The  respondent does  not  deny      that it  had sent and issued letter      No. 2775 dated 26th August, 1991 to      appellant:      (ii) The  respondent does  not deny      that this  letter does  not contain      any direction  to the  appellant to      obtain   co-acceptance   from   the      French Bank:      (iii) The  respondent says  that it      had issued  letter NO.  2776  dated      26th August,  1991 in  substitution      of the  earlier  no.  2775  of  the      event dated;      (iv) the  fact that this letter was      sent in  substitution of letter No.      2775 dated 26th August, 1991 is not      mentioned in the letter itself:      (v) The respondent does to say that      the  letter  NO.  2775  dated  26th      August, 1991  should be  treated as      cancelled;      (vi)     The     respondent     had      corresponded with the appellant and      had  even   given  a  notice  dated      26.3.92 through  its counsel to the      appellant claiming  the amounts due      under the  Bill of  Exchange on the      ground of  negligence  but  nowhere      does the  respondent says  that the      letter No.  2776 dated 26th August,      1991 was substitution of letter No.      2775 of that date:      (vii) Even  the original  complaint      filed before  the Commission  , the      respondent does  not  say  anywhere

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 23  

    that they  had  issued  letter  No.      2776  of   26th  August,   1991  in      substitution of the letter NO. 2775      of that date.      (viii) The  plea  that  letter  NO.      2776 was  issued in substitution of      letter no.  2775 was  asserted   by      respondent for  the first  time  in      review   proceedings    when    the      appellant filed  this letter before      the  commission.  The  respondent’s      silence still the stage, therefore,      becomes  eloquent  indicating  that      this letter  was  no  in  existence      till then:      (ix) What  was the  mode of payment      agreed upon  between the respondent      and the  buyer in  France  has  not      been  indicated.   Nor     has  any      correspondence, or for that matter,      any agreement  in  writing  between      the respondent  and the buyer, been      filed  or   brought  on  record  to      indicate the  terms of  contract or      agreement   or,    at   least,   to      indicated the  mode of payment, was      specifically mentioned by it in its      "Collection    Order"     to    the      appellant.      (x) The respondent and already come      to the  know  that  the  buyer  was      under liquidation as the liquidator      himself   had    written   to   the      respondent to  file  its  claim  in      respect of the goods supplied by it      to the Buyer.      (xi) There  was some correspondence      with French  Bank  and  the  French      Bank wrote  to the appellant, which      was also  brought  to the notice of      the respondent,  that co-acceptance      by a  French Bank was not permitted      under  French   Law  and  that,  if      insistence for co-acceptance by the      French  Bank  meant  furnishing  of      bank  guarantee,  the  French  Bank      would have  refused to furnish that      guarantee even  if it  was required      of it  in the  letter  accompanying      the  Bills   of   Exchange.   (this      assertion by  the French Bank is in      consonance with the Preamble of ICC      Rules  which   says   that   "these      provisions     apply     to     all      Collections... Unless  contrary  to      the provisions  of a national state      or  local   now  and/or  regulation      which cannot be departed from.")      It  was,   thus,  apparent  to  the      respondent that  there  was  little      hope the   entire  amount  covering      the goods  supplied by  it  to  the      French  Buyer  would  be  paid  and      therefore, it  acted in a dexterous      and sophisticated  manner to fasten

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 23  

    the liability  on the  appellant by      branding it  as  negligent  is  not      writing specifically  to the French      Buyer for co-acceptance in spite of      its letter  NO. 2776 of 26.8.91 and      to support  this plea  by evidence,      it forged  the letter  in  question      forgetting   that   there   existed      another letter  NO.  2775  of  that      date in  which the  requirement  of      co-acceptance by  French  Bank  was      indicated.  Indeed,   the   Persian      saying that "DAROGH GO RA HAFIZA NA      BASHAD" (A  LIAR HAS NO MEMORY ) is      the still the time tested truth.      In the  face of overwhelming evidence, the entry in the respondent’s record  indicating that  letter  NO.  2776  was issued cannot  be accepted.  Significantly, the  copy of the disputed letter bears and endorsement of "Receipt and Rubber Stamp" allegedly  of the  appellant  but  the  copy  of  the admitted letter  No. 2775  does not  bear any endorsement of receipt which the respondent had acted. 43. In view of the above, and if the letter No. 2776 (forged by the  respondent) is  excluded from  the  evidence,  there remains only  the letter  No. 2775  of 26.8.1991 in which is was not  indicated by  the respondent  to the  appellant  to write to  the French  Bank to  deliver the documents only on co-acceptance by  it. The  appellant, in  the circumstances, was justified  in not mentioning co-acceptance by the French Bank. The  case of  the respondent  being false and based on fabricated evidence has to be dismissed.      The appeals  are consequently  allowed,  and  both  the judgments  of   the  Commission,   namely  judgments   dated 16.11.1993 and  13.12.1994 are  set aside  and the  Original Complaint  of   the  respondent   is  dismissed  with  costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.