RE: LEGAL OPINION REGARDING COMPLAINT CASE NO. ………. OF 2005 FILED BY COMPANY 1 IN THE COURT CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATNA.
We have perused the contents of your letter, dated 11.06.2006, alongwith copy of documents/papers referred to us. It appears that following our opinion Bank have requested COMPANY 2 to conduct the suit on Bank’s behalf, to arrange exclusion of Bank’s name from the captioned case on the ground of jurisdiction since the Bank have no branch in Patna and no officers of the Bank were physically present at the place of occurrence. COMPANY 2 reply has been received by the bank and it appears that COMPANY 2 opined that order of warrant can be executed against the Bank pursuant to Section 3 and Section 19 of the Extradition Act 1962. Now, we are requested to submit the jurisdiction and to choose between appearance and non-appearance and finally, our proposed defence for the considered opinion.
The captioned case filed on the basis of the international business transaction through Letter of Credit No. 256129976 dated 01.03.1999 (the “L/C”), which was opened by BANK 1. However, the L/C applicant requested the L/C opening Bank to cancel the L/C in question since, the Beneficiary of the L/C i.e. the Exporter i.e. the petitioner of the aforesaid case failed to ship the goods within the stipulated time as mentioned in the L/C. As a result the L/C opening Bank cancelled the said L/C and communicated the same in accordance. In consequence, the whole transaction came to an end and therefore, in connection of the said L/C no forgery and cheating have been committed by the L/C opening Bank.
In addition we would like to stick with the previous issue of jurisdiction of the Indian Court upon the Bank. Under the jurisdiction, Indian Court can only execute order of warrant against any juristic or natural person, provided that whether the natural person in question is a citizen of the country i.e. India or the juristic person in question is registered by the relevant Laws of India. Neither the Bank by any means is incorporated/registered by the Indian Laws, nor any officials of the Bank were present at the time of the occurrence. Thus, it would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Indian Court to execute the order of warrant against the Bank in the captioned case. Thus, we opine that as there is no question of committing forgery/cheating by the L/C opening Bank and also it seems that the Indian Court has no jurisdiction upon the Bank, it is expected that COMPANY 2 are to be requested by the Bank to file a petition on behalf of the Bank on the basis of aforesaid jurisdiction issue and the L/C transaction for striking out the name of the Bank from the captioned case. It would be beneficial to COMPANY 2 for filing the aforesaid petition, if the Bank could send all the copies of documents relating the said transaction.
However, it appears from the letter issued by the COMPANY 2, People’s Republic of Bangladesh was wrongly addressed as Islamic republic of Bangladesh. Please strongly notify, COMPANY 2 regarding this issue. We are sending herewith all papers and documents, which were sent to us.
Should you have any further query, please revert back to us.
For: “The Lawyers & Jurists”