Arun Madan ( 1 ) THE facts giving arise to the filing of the appeal,briefly stated, are as under :- ( 2 ) THE Appellant-Bank had filed a suit in this Court bearing Suitno. 371/1971 for recovery of Rs. 55,944. 46 plus interest thereon, on 2 2/12/1971 against the respondents. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a partnership firm and was operating andcarrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Consortium ofexporters for Fabric Exports. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded aspartners of respondent No. 1. ( 4 ) AS per the averments in the plaint, respondent No. 1 through itspartner Shri Dewan Singh, respondent No. 3 approached the appellant-Bankat its said branch office at Connaught Circus, New Delhi on 9/12/1968 for making early arrangements for a forward sale of sterling pounds2,84,444 covering the export contract, hereinafter mentioned, the contract,equivalent to Rs. 51,20,000. 00in Indian currency. The said branch office ofthe appellant made necessary arrangements for a forward sale of pounds2,84,444 equivalent to Rs. 51,20,000. 00 and informed respondent No. 1 of thearrangements having been so made by their letter No. FEX 17/14907dated 18/12/1968. Thereafter, the appellant. Bank entered into aformal contract with respondent No. 2 through its duly authorised Generalmanager, Shri Jawahar Lal Jawahar (husband of respondent No. 2) wherebythe said branch office confirmed having bought for respondent No. 1 theforeign exchange to the tune of pounds 2,84,444 by Forward Purchasecontract covering shipments of terrywool and woolen fabrics valued atrs. 51,20,000. 00 to be effected under the Export contract entered into byrespondent No. 1 with their foreign buyers, subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Foreign Exchange Dealers Association of India (in short FEDA ). The validity of the said contract was upto 13/06/1969. It wasspecifically agreed to by respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid contract that thesaid branch office of the appellant-bank would have the discretion to extendit or to refuse to extent it at its option. In the event of agreeing to extendthe same, the said branch office of the appellant would charge the prevailingrates for extension and/or cancellation as per rules and regulations of thefeda. ( 5 ) IN confirmation of the above, the appellant, bank vide letter (Ex. P-2), confirmed having sold to the respondents the foreign exchangeamounting to pounds 2,84,444 by agreement dated 14/12/1968. The delivery period was specified in the said agreement as 14th May, 1969/ 13/06/1969. ( 5 ) IN confirmation of the above, the appellant, bank vide letter (Ex. P-2), confirmed having sold to the respondents the foreign exchangeamounting to pounds 2,84,444 by agreement dated 14/12/1968. The delivery period was specified in the said agreement as 14th May, 1969/ 13/06/1969. This contract was accepted and acted upon in its trueletter and spirit by the respondents, who never objected to the same at anystage. ( 6 ) AS the date of expiry of the forward exchange contract wasapproaching fast and respondent No. 1 having not utilised the contract, thesaid branch office of the appellant-bank sought further instructions of therespondents as to whether they wanted further extension of the contract,whereupon respondent No. 1 through its General Manager, Shri Jawahar Laljawahar requested the said branch office of the appellant-bank for the extension of the above contract for a further period of six months. The said branch office vide their letter No. 18/2585 dated 18-6-1969informed respondent No. 1 that the duration of the said contract had beenextended for a further period of six months on the request of respondentno. 1 and consequently the appellant requested respondent No. 1 to remitto the bank the extension charges for the contract as per the rules andregulations of the Foreign Exchange and claimed a sum of Rs. 18,333. 26towards extension charges. ( 7 ) IN spite of above, since the appellant-bank did not receive anyinstructions from the respondents with regard, to the extension charges whichwere not remitted to the bank despite the appellant s request, respondentno. 1 was again requested by the bank vide its letter dated 20-11-1969 toremit them the extension charges for the said contract and the bank furtherwarned the respondent No. 1 that non payment of the extension chargesconstituted violation of the Foreign Exchange Rules and that the contractmight have to be cancelled at the expiry of the extended term which was13-12-1969 and for which respondent No. 1 will be further liable to pay tothe appellant a sum of Rs. 30. 000. 00 towards the cancellation charges. Despite this letter and the earlier demands, respondent No. 1 did not care toremit the aforesaid charges to the bank. 30. 000. 00 towards the cancellation charges. Despite this letter and the earlier demands, respondent No. 1 did not care toremit the aforesaid charges to the bank. ( 8 ) ON 20/11/1969, the appellant again requested therespondents to remit them the extension charges and further intimatedrespondent No. 1 that non-payment of the extension charges was a violationof the Rules of the FEDA and in that eventuality, the contract might haveto be cancelled at the expiry of the extended term, which was 13/12/1969 and on which the cancellation charges payable by respondent No. 1to the appellant would be Rs. 30,000. 00. Despite this letter and earlierdemands, respondent No. 1 did not care to pay the extension charges nordid respondent No. 1 give any instructions to the bank about further extension or cancellation of the contract beyond 13/12/1969. ( 9 ) THAT finally on 12/03/1970, the appellants were constrainedto serve a legal notice on respondent No. 1 through their Counsel callingupon respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 18,333. 26 being the extensioncharges together with interest thereon and also a sum of Rs. 220. 00 being thecounsel s fee for insurance of the said legal notice. Respondent No. 1 wasalso intimated that the appellants were answerable to the Reserve Bank ofindia for having booked the foreign exchange on account of the respondentsand since the contract was not extended the appellants had applied for,permission of the Reserve Bank of India for cancellation. In spite of thisrespondent No. 1 neither paid the said amounts nor cared to reply to thesaid notice. The Appellant Bank was left with no option, but to intimatethe respondents on 20/11/1969 (Ex. P/16) that the respondentshad committed violation of the FEDA rules and which would have to bereported to the exchange control authorities and finally again made arequest for payment of the outstanding amount immediately. ( 10 ) THE respondents failed to comply with the instructions eitherwith the terms of the contract or with the request made by the appellant inthis regard and it is in these circumstances that the Appellant-Bank filed theabove noted suit. ( 11 ) THE defendents in their written statement raised various pleasand denied the validity and existence of the contract. They also pleadedthat Jawahar Lal Jawahar had no right or authority to enter into anycontract with the plaintiff. ( 11 ) THE defendents in their written statement raised various pleasand denied the validity and existence of the contract. They also pleadedthat Jawahar Lal Jawahar had no right or authority to enter into anycontract with the plaintiff. On the pleading of the parties, the followingissues were framed :- (1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit ? O. P. P. (2) Whether there was any contract between the parties as allegedby the plaintiff ? O. P. P. (3) If issue No. 2 is proved, whether definition were aware of therules and regulations of the Foreign Exchange Dealer sassociation ? If so, what is its effect ? O. P. P. (4) Whether Mr. D. J. Sen Gupta is duly authorised to sign andverify the plaint to institute the suit ? O. P. P. (5) Whether the plaintiff did render any service to claim theamount in question ? O. P. P. (6) Relief. ( 12 ) ISSUES Nos. 1 and 4 were decided in favour of the appellantissues 2, 3 and 5 were decided against the applicant. On these issues thelearned Judge returned the findings that the contract, was void and the defendant could not be held liable for the charges claimed in the suit. In view ofthis finding, the suit was dismissed. This is how the present Appeal hasbeen preferred by the Appellant Bank. ( 13 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellantcontended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the contract wasvoid for the reason that when Jawahar Lal Jawahar entered into the contractwith the appellant, he was not aware of the FEDA rules and his mind didnot go with the hands, is incorrect and is not legally sustainable. He contended that if the respondent was not aware of the FEDA rules, it was theirduty to have requested the Appellant-Bank to have apprised them of theimplication of the FEDA rules. The respondent did not at any time bringthis fact to the notice of Appellant-Bank. Rather they asked the Bank forextension of contract. This clearly showed that the respondent was fullyaware of the FEDA rules and that is why they had sought extension of thecontract. It was further contended that in fact, the conduct of the respondents was amply clear from the fact that their silence was equivalent tospeech and their acceptance of the terms and condition of the agreement. This clearly showed that the respondent was fullyaware of the FEDA rules and that is why they had sought extension of thecontract. It was further contended that in fact, the conduct of the respondents was amply clear from the fact that their silence was equivalent tospeech and their acceptance of the terms and condition of the agreement. The contract refers to the FEDA rules and it is clear that the FEDA rulesformed part of the contract. The Bank had to charge according to theserules and the services were not to be rendered gratuitiously. Assuming thatthe respondents were not aware of the implications of the FEDA rules,nothing prevented them from seeking clarification and guidance from thethe Bank. This was not done. The respondent cannot now be permittedto urge that they were not aware of the FEDA rules. On the other hand,mr. Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the respondents convassed thatthe finding of the learned Single Judge is correct and is based on appreciationof evidence which finding cannot be lightly interferred in this Appeal. Healso contended that it was proved on record that the FEDA rules were notdisclosed to the respondents and there was no concluded contract. Insupport of his argument he has relied upon a judgment of Andhra Pradeshhigh Court, reported in AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 5, wherein it was held,"that unless the terms of the contract were arrived at after due negotiations,they could not be held binding merely because a lottery ticket was laterissued containing the said terms. " We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties. In our opinion, the contentions raised by Mr. Aggarwal have force and arefull of merit. By letter Exhibit P-2, the Bank informed the respondents thatthey had sold to the respondents foreign exchange subject to the Rules andregulations of FEDA. If the respondents were not aware of the FEDArules, they should have immediately asked the Bank to supply them the copyof the rules. This was not done. It implies that the FEDA rules were with-in the knowledge of the respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents weredealing in exports and the presumption of awareness is not ruled out. Thecase of the respondents as pleaded was that the contract was entered byjawahar Lal Jawahar on behalf of the respondents and he was not madeaware of the FEDA rules. It implies that the FEDA rules were with-in the knowledge of the respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents weredealing in exports and the presumption of awareness is not ruled out. Thecase of the respondents as pleaded was that the contract was entered byjawahar Lal Jawahar on behalf of the respondents and he was not madeaware of the FEDA rules. Jawahar Lal Jawahar did appear as awitness onbehalf of the respondents, but made no such statement in his examinationin chief, however, in the cross-examination, he deposed that he was notshown the FEDA rules at the time of entering into the contract. On theother hand, Mr. V. S. Pillai, Manager of the plaintiff-Bank, appearing aspw-1 stated that the charges were payable according to the FEDA rules bythe respondents to the Appellant-Bank. These were payable only in respectof extension or cancellation and not for entering into the contract. Theextension charges (sic) cancellation charges on account of exchangedifference) according to these rules amounted to Rs. 30,074. 49. In the crossexamination, he further deposed that these rules were meant for the publicthough these are not sold as such. The respondents asked for extension ofthe contract, which was extended at their request. By letter dated 1 8/06/1969 (Exhibit P-12), the Bank informed the respondents that thecontract was extended upto 13/12/1969, as desired by them andrequested the respondents to remit an amount of Rs. 18,333. 26 being extension charges. Even at that point of time, the respondents could havewritten to the Bank as on what basis they were claiming extension chargesbut on the contrary they availed of the facility of extended period of thecontract. They took no pains to know as to what was the amount they wererequired to pay in case of cancellation of the contract or for extension of thecontract. Rather they availed of the said facilities. This is not the case ofthe respondents that the services provided by the Bank were gratuitious andthey were not required to pay any amount to the Bank for the servicesrendered. The bank is claiming the amount on the" basis of the FEDA rules. It is too late for the respondents now to urge that they did not know thefeda. rules and were not liable to pay service charges in accordance withthe FEDA rules, are of the confirmed view that the respondents were awareof the these rules and lack of awareness cannot be pleaded as an excuse toescape the liability. It is too late for the respondents now to urge that they did not know thefeda. rules and were not liable to pay service charges in accordance withthe FEDA rules, are of the confirmed view that the respondents were awareof the these rules and lack of awareness cannot be pleaded as an excuse toescape the liability. Even assuming that the respondents were not aware ofthe FEDA rules, they are bound to pay to the Bank for the services renderedby them The Bank is claiming the amount on the basis of the FEDArules. The contention of the respondents that these rules were not madeavailable to them. has no force. The rules were not secret, but were available with all the banks and the customer had a free access to the rules. Inour opinion, the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that thefeda rules were not made aware to the respondents and the contract wasvoid and as such they were not liable to pay any amount to the Bank. Onthe contrary, we hold that there was a valid and binding contract betweenthe parties or in any case the respondents were bound to compensate theappellant for the services rendered to the respondents. The next questionis as to how much compensation the Appellant-Bank is entitled to claimfrom the respondents. The bank has claimed a sum of Rs. 18. 333. 26 onaccount of the extension of the contract from 13-6-1969 to 13-12-1969 andrs. 30,074. 49 on account of exchange difference due to the bank on, cancellation of the contract. According to the appellant-bank, these amountshave been calculated as per FEDA rules. The contention is supported bymr. V. S. Pillai. Manager. PW-1 on behalf of the Appellant-Bank. Hestated that the extension charges according to the FEDA rules amounted to Rs. 18. 333. 26. He further deposed that the cancellation charges have alsobeen calculated on the basis of the FEDA rules and amounted tors. 30. 074. 49 according to the then prevalent rates. We rely upon thestatement of this witness and hold that the plaintiff-bank is entitled to chargers. 41. 407. 75 (i. e. Rs. 18. 333. 26 as extension charge plus Rs. 30. 074. 49 ascancellation charges and this amount, the Bank is entitled to recover fromthe respondents The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled toany interest or not ? We rely upon thestatement of this witness and hold that the plaintiff-bank is entitled to chargers. 41. 407. 75 (i. e. Rs. 18. 333. 26 as extension charge plus Rs. 30. 074. 49 ascancellation charges and this amount, the Bank is entitled to recover fromthe respondents The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled toany interest or not ? In addition the above, the Appellant Bank is alsoentitled to interest @ 7% p. a. from 14-6-1969 to 8-1-1971 having accusedon extension charges amounting to Rs. 2,024. 72 and also interest @ 8% from9-1-1971 to 31-8-1971 on the extension charges amounting to Rs. 941. 93. The bank is also entitled to interest @ 7% p. a. for the period from20-10-1969 to 8-1-1971 on account of exchange difference due to the Bankon cancellation of the contract, amounting to Rs, 2,584. 85. Besides thebank is also entitled to interest @ 8% p. a. from 9-1-1971 to 31-8-1971 onaccount of exchange difference due to the Bank on cancellation of thecontract amounting to Rs, 1545. 20 p. and also notice charges paid by thebank to its Counsel amounting to Rs. 440. 00. Thus the amount due to the Bank on account of interest of Counsel sfee amounts to Rs. 7636. 71 P. The appellant-bank is therefore, entitled torecover a sum of Rs. 55,944. 46 (Rs. 48,407. 75 as extension and cancellationscharges plus Rs. 7,536. 71 as interest thereon and Counsel s fee ). However,we are not inclined to award any future interest to the Appellant-Bank atthe rate of 8% p. a. as claimed in the plaint. ( 14 ) IN the result, we allow this Appeal, set aside the judgment of thelearned Single Judge and decree the suit of the plaintiff/appellant forrecovery of Rs. 55,944. 46 with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.