S.N. VARIAVA, J. :---The plaintiffs are a Banking Company incorporated under the Laws of England and Wales and having their office at 1-Aldermanbury Square, London, EC 2V 7SB. The plaintiffs carry on their banking business in India and have one of its branches at 23-25, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay -400 023. The defendants are Trustees of Canbank Mutual Fund. The 1st defendant is a Nationalised Banking Company constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. I am informed that the 1st defendant is the principal Trustee. For the sake of convenience, Canbank Mutual Fund and its Trustees will hereafter be called the defendants. 2. The plaintiffs aver that : (a) On 23rd August, 1991 they purchased from the defendants 11.5% Government of India Securities 2008 of the face value of Rs. 10 crores. (b) On 26th August, 1991 they purchased from the defendants 11.5% Government of India Securities 2008 of the face value of Rs.7 crores. (c) On 4th September, 1991 they purchased from the defendants 11.5% Government of India Securities 2008 of the face value of Rs. 43 crores. 3. The plaintiffs aver that in respect of each of these three transactions the defendants had submitted their cost memo to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants had also submitted S.G.L. Transfer Forms for each of these transactions. The plaintiffs aver that for all these transactions they had made full payment of the purchase price of Rs. 60,64,71,275.12p. The plaintiffs aver that they had issued the following cheques which were encashed by the defendants: a) Cheque No. 959020 dated 23rd August, 1991 for Rs. 10,36,88,202.44, b) Cheque No. 759029 dated 26th August, 1991 for Rs. 7,26,15,406.33 and c) Cheque No. 959071 dated 4th September, 1991 for Rs. 2,75,213.04. The plaintiffs aver that last cheque was for a net amount payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants after netting of certain other transactions between them. This is not denied. 4. The plaintiffs aver that under the Costs Memo and the three S. G. L. Transfer Forms the defendants were obliged to ensure that the plaintiffs obtained delivery of the securities purchased by them by way of appropriate transfer in the books of the Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office. This is not denied. 4. The plaintiffs aver that under the Costs Memo and the three S. G. L. Transfer Forms the defendants were obliged to ensure that the plaintiffs obtained delivery of the securities purchased by them by way of appropriate transfer in the books of the Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office. The plaintiffs aver that if the securities were not so delivered defendants were bound and liable to return the amounts to the plaintiffs. 5. The plaintiffs aver that the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were presented to the Reserve Bank of India on 18th September, 1991, 5th October, 1991 and on 2nd November, 1991. The plaintiffs aver that on all occasions the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were dishonoured. The plaintiffs aver that on 25th November, 1991 they received the half yearly interest in relation to the said securities by a cheque drawn on Andhra Bank. 6. The plaintiffs aver that on 19th December, 1991 the S.G.L. Transfer Form for Rs. 7 crores was returned to the defendants and it was substituted by two separate S.G.L. Transfer Forms for Rs. 5,39,00,000/- and Rs. 1,61,00,000/- respectively. The S.G.L. Transfer Form for Rs. 1,61,00,000/- was presented and cleared on 20th December, 1991. 7. The plaintiffs refer to the correspondence between the parties and aver that the defendants failed to ensure clearance of the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants have failed and neglected to honour their commitment. 8. The defendants filed in the High Court of judicature at Bombay Suit No. 2796 of 1992. This suit is filed on the basis that one Mr. Hiten Dalal (who admittedly was the broker in these transactions) had squared off the defendants liability under the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. This suit was filed for reliefs restraining the plaintiffs herein from making any claims on the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. Notice of Motion No. 2244 of 1992 in Suit No. 2796 of 1992 was dismissed on by the Bombay High Court on 16th November, 1992. Even though the defendants herein did not get any interim reliefs in their suit, it was of no use to the plaintiffs herein because the defendants herein were not honouring their commitments. The plaintiffs herein thus filed this suit in the High Court of judicature at Bombay on 7th December, 1992. The suit was numbered as Summary Suit No. 3756 of 1992. The plaintiffs herein thus filed this suit in the High Court of judicature at Bombay on 7th December, 1992. The suit was numbered as Summary Suit No. 3756 of 1992. In order to file this suit as a summary suit the plaintiffs have given up their claim to the securities. The plaintiffs have now restricted their claim to a return of monies. 9. After the amendment of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act (hereinafter for sake of brevity called the Special Courts Act) the Bombay High Court transferred this suit to this Court by an order dated 24th February, 1994. It appears that it was submitted by the defendants before the Bombay High Court that in spite of the amendment the Bombay High Court continued to have jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court negatived this contention and held that it is only this Court which would now have jurisdiction. 10. This suit was originally filed only against the Canara Bank as the Sole Trustee of Canbank Mutual Fund. Canara Bank filed a written statement dated 12th October, 1994. One of the points taken up by Canara Bank was that it was not the Sole Trustee. The plaint was therefore amended. The other Trustees have been joined as defendant Nos. 2 to 11 to this suit. Defendant Nos. 2 to 11 have thereafter filed a written statement on 30th November, 1994. 11. Originally the 1st defendants (Canara Bank) had only raised the defence of squaring off in their written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 to 11 in their written statement took up an additional defence of repayment. The 1st defendants had thereafter amended its written statement to include the additional defence of repayment. 12. In their written statement the defendants aver that the suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of one Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants also aver that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 13. The defendants aver that in most of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants, Mr. Hiten Dalal acted as a common Broker. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal used to approach the defendants with a request for purchase or sale of bonds or securities. The defendants aver that after the terms were settled in case of purchase Mr. The defendants aver that in most of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants, Mr. Hiten Dalal acted as a common Broker. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal used to approach the defendants with a request for purchase or sale of bonds or securities. The defendants aver that after the terms were settled in case of purchase Mr. Hiten Dalal used to bring the cheque of the plaintiffs or R.B.I. counter-foil or the pay-in-slip for having deposited the cheque of the plaintiffs to the credit of the 1st defendants. The defendants aver that in cases of sales Mr. Hiten Dalal used to take from the defendants the cost memo along with the securities and/or a Banker Receipt or S.G.L. Transfer Form. 14. The defendants aver that they have now learnt that the relationship between the plaintiffs and Mr. Hiten Dalal was as follows : "A large number of security transactions of the plaintiffs were either with or on behalf of Hiten Dalal. The transactions on behalf of Hiten Dalal were under an informal arrangement with Hiten Dalal whereby the plaintiffs were assured a return of 15% on its fund outlay in respect of the transactions in securities. There was an informal arrangement whereby the plaintiffs at the direction of Hiten Dalal bought securities from bank counter parties. A subsequent sale of these securities was also negotiated by Hiten Dalal and the plaintiffs made sales at such negotiated prices to counter-party Banks designated by Hiten Dalal. A desired sale price was derived to assure to the plaintiffs the required returns for the period it held the securities. The difference between the actual sale price and the desired sale price was paid to or recovered from Hiten Dalal. In the transaction with the counter-party Banks, the plaintiffs were carrying Hiten Dalals open position as their own position. It is thus clear that there was a close nexus between the plaintiffs and Hiten Dalal and Hiten Dalal was not only authorised to act and was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs also acted under and in accordance with the directions of Hiten Dalal. This is established by the Report of Jankiraman Committee. Mr. It is thus clear that there was a close nexus between the plaintiffs and Hiten Dalal and Hiten Dalal was not only authorised to act and was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs also acted under and in accordance with the directions of Hiten Dalal. This is established by the Report of Jankiraman Committee. Mr. Hiten Dalal had represented himself and had acted as a broker between the 1st defendants and the Bank of Karad Ltd. as also as a broker between the 1st defendants and the plaintiffs in respect of securities transactions entered into by the 1st defendants with Bank of Karad Ltd. and with the plaintiffs. The said Hiten Dalal, however, as is apparent from the Jankiraman Report and the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report submitted to Parliament had closer relations with the plaintiffs and the Bank of Karad Ltd. and although he had represented himself to the 1st defendants as being merely a broker for the Bank of Karad Ltd. and/or the plaintiffs in a large number of transactions including the suit transaction/transactions referred to herein the said Hiten Dalal was acting on behalf of the said two Banks. The said two Banks including the plaintiffs also acted under and in accordance with Hiten Dalal directions in a large number of security transactions made by Hiten Dalal in the name of the plaintiffs as also in the name of the Bank of Karad Ltd. including the suit transaction/transactions referred to herein were in fact on behalf of Hiten Dalal himself." At this stage it must be mentioned that in this suit there is no counter-claim and/or a third party Notice against Mr. Hiten Dalal. 15. The defendants then aver that on 27th May, 1991 they had purchased 11.5% Government of India 2008 securities of the face value of Rs. 58.39 crores from the Bank of Karad Ltd. The defendants aver that the S.G.L. Transfer Form of the Bank of Karad, when lodged with the Reserve Bank of India, was dishonoured on ground of insufficient balance. The defendants aver that this happened on 29th May, 1991 as well on 31st May, 1991. The defendants aver that they then handed over the S.G.L. Transfer Form issued by the Bank of Karad to Mr. Hiten Dalal for rectification and/or replacement by a fresh S.G.L. Transfer Form. The defendants aver that this was some time in July, 1991. 16. The defendants aver that this happened on 29th May, 1991 as well on 31st May, 1991. The defendants aver that they then handed over the S.G.L. Transfer Form issued by the Bank of Karad to Mr. Hiten Dalal for rectification and/or replacement by a fresh S.G.L. Transfer Form. The defendants aver that this was some time in July, 1991. 16. The defendants then admit that between August and December, 1991, they entered into the three suit transactions. The defendants aver that in all the three suit transactions Mr. Hiten Dalal has acted as a Broker and that Mr. Hiten Dalal has brought the plaintiffs cheque to the defendants. The defendants aver that the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms in respect of the suit transactions was collected by Mr. Hiten Dalal from the defendants. 17. The defendants then aver that as S.G.L. Transfer Form issued by the Bank of Karad for Rs. 58.39 Crores had been outstanding till December 1991, they made inquiries with Mr. Hiten Dalal in respect of the same. The defendants aver that on inquiries, Mr. Hiten Dalal informed the 1st defendants that since there were sale transactions outstanding for the same securities between the plaintiffs and the defendants aggregating to Rs. 60 crores the transaction of the plaintiffs with the 1st defendants would be squared off and that delivery of all securities would be directly made by the Bank of Karad to the plaintiffs. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal advised the defendants that he would directly deliver to the plaintiffs fresh S.G.L. Transfer Forms of the Bank of Karad for that amount. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal advised them that he would return to the defendants the three suit S.G.L. Transfer Forms. The defendants aver that it was because of this arrangement that on 19th December, 1991 Mr. Hiten Dalal brought the original S.G.L. Transfer Form for Rs. 7 crores and got the same substituted by two fresh S.G.L. Transfer Forms for Rs. 5.39 crores and Rs. 1.61 crores. The defendants aver that under these circumstances the transaction between the defendants and the plaintiffs was squared off by Mr. Hiten Dalal in or about December 1991. The defendants aver that by reason of such squaring off all the obligations under the three suit S.G.L. Transfer Forms were discharged and that the defendants were not liable on these three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. Hiten Dalal in or about December 1991. The defendants aver that by reason of such squaring off all the obligations under the three suit S.G.L. Transfer Forms were discharged and that the defendants were not liable on these three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. The defendants aver that thereafter the plaintiffs made no claim in respect of these three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. The defendants aver that the said three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were not presented to the R.B.I. after December 1991 till 15th May, 1992. The defendants aver that the plaintiffs did not claim the half yearly interest which had accrued and fallen due on 23rd November, 1991 from the defendants. 18. The defendants aver that they were surprised to receive a letter dated 19th May, 1992 from the plaintiffs. The defendants aver that by this letter a false claim was made by the plaintiffs on the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. The defendants aver that they were surprised to learn from the said letter dated 19th May, 1992 that the said three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were in possession of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs had presented them on 15th May, 1992. 19. The defendants aver that thereafter they made inquiries with Bank of Karad on 22nd May, 1992. The defendants aver that the officer of the Bank of Karad one Shri Raje informed the plaintiffs Chief Executive and General Manager (Administration) that Mr. Hiten Dalal had returned back to the Bank of Karad, the S.G.L. Transfer Form issued by the Bank of Karad in favour of the defendants duly cancelled and that the transaction had been squared off by Mr. Hiten Dalal. 20. The defendants aver that they made inquiries with Mr. Hiten Dalal as to why the plaintiffs were making demands on the basis of the said three suit S.G.L. Transfer Forms. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal informed them that he had also acted as a Broker in some dealings and transactions with other Banks including the plaintiff Bank. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal informed them that on account of pressure brought upon him by the plaintiffs to bring criminal action against him, various documents which were in his possession had been taken away by the plaintiffs. The defendants aver that Mr. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal informed them that on account of pressure brought upon him by the plaintiffs to bring criminal action against him, various documents which were in his possession had been taken away by the plaintiffs. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal confirmed that the demand made by the plaintiffs on the defendants in respect of the said three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were not in order and that the defendants had no obligation to the plaintiffs in respect of the transaction. 21. The defendants aver that the plaintiffs had not obtained the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms in the ordinary course of the Banking business, but had obtained possession of them forcibly and illegally from Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants aver that for this reason the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim or enforce any claim under the said three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. 22. The defendants then aver that by their letter dated 16th June, 1992 they informed the Reserve Bank of the aforesaid facts and requested the Reserve Bank to investigate into the matter. 23. The defendants aver that there were a large number of security transactions of the plaintiffs either with or on behalf of Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants aver that the transactions with Mr. Hiten Dalal were transactions wherein plaintiffs lent and advanced money to Mr. Hiten Dalal on an assured return of 15%. The defendants aver that such transactions were disguised as transactions in securities. The defendants aver that there was an informal arrangement whereby, the plaintiffs at the directions of Mr. Hiten Dalal purported to buy securities from counter-parties. The defendants aver that subsequent sale of securities was negotiated by Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants aver that the sales would be at prices negotiated by Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants aver that the sale price was derived in order to assure to the plaintiffs a required returns of 15% for the period the plaintiffs had to hold these securities. The defendants aver that in the purported transactions with the counter-party the plaintiffs were carrying Mr. Hiten Dalals open position as their own position. The defendants aver that these facts are established by the Report of the Jankiraman Committee and the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report. 24. The defendants aver that Mr. The defendants aver that in the purported transactions with the counter-party the plaintiffs were carrying Mr. Hiten Dalals open position as their own position. The defendants aver that these facts are established by the Report of the Jankiraman Committee and the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report. 24. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal had represented himself and had acted as a Broker between the plaintiffs and the Bank of Karad, as also a Broker between the defendants and the plaintiffs in respect of securities transactions. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal had a closer business relations with the plaintiffs and Bank of Karad even though he had merely represented to the defendants a Broker. The defendants aver that in a large number of transactions, including the suit transactions, Mr. Hiten Dalal was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs. Immediately in the next line the defendants aver that the plaintiffs also acted under and in accordance with Mr. Hiten Dalals directions in a large number of security transactions. The defendants aver that the said transactions purported to be security transactions were in fact transactions on behalf of and for the benefit of Mr. Hiten Dalal himself. 25. The defendants aver that the transactions of lending and advancing monies to Mr. Hiten Dalal and repayment thereof with accrued interest was done by transactions which were given the color and/or guise of security transactions. According to the defendants against the monies lent and advanced, Mr. Hiten Dalal would procure for the plaintiffs sometimes directly from the Bank of Karad or sometimes indirectly through other intermediaries, a Bankers Receipt or a S.G.L. Transfer Form showing that monies had been paid to Bank of Karad or other intermediary as the case may be. The defendants aver that however by means of colored transactions these monies were ultimately credited into the personal account of Mr. Hiten Dalal and/or his nominee with the Bank of Karad. The defendants aver that the Bank of Karad and other intermediaries were used as conduits for the monies so advanced by the plaintiffs to Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants aver that the monies so advanced were used by Mr. Hiten Dalal for stock exchange operations and thereafter repaid to the plaintiffs together with assured returns. The defendants aver that the Bank of Karad and other intermediaries were used as conduits for the monies so advanced by the plaintiffs to Mr. Hiten Dalal. The defendants aver that the monies so advanced were used by Mr. Hiten Dalal for stock exchange operations and thereafter repaid to the plaintiffs together with assured returns. The defendants aver that this was also done by means of or under guise of security transactions entered into directly with the Bank of Karad or through other intermediaries. The defendants aver that the repayment was sometimes by means of one transaction or sometimes by means of several transactions. 26. The defendants aver that they have now learnt that the purported transactions covered by the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were part of the other transactions involving the plaintiffs, Mr. Hiten Dalal, Bank of Karad and the Citibank. The defendants aver that these were part of the other transactions involving the monies received directly or indirectly by Mr. Hiten Dalal from the plaintiffs which he subsequently repaid. The defendants aver that the plaintiffs had advanced Rs. 58.39 crores and/or Rs. 60 crores which was transferred through other intermediaries to Mr. Hiten Dalal under the colour/guise of various security transactions of purchase and sale. The defendants aver that these were monies utilised by Mr. Hiten Dalal for his own benefit. The defendants aver that the defendants were used as an intermediary so far as the suit transactions are concerned. The defendants aver that Mr. Hiten Dalal had repaid the amounts of the three suit S.G.L. Transfer Forms and accordingly the liability of the defendants stand discharged. The defendants aver that the repayment had taken place by virtue of the transactions which are set out in Exhibit 4 to the written statement. According to the defendants, the profits made by the plaintiffs in the transactions as set out in Exhibit 4 to the written statement are repayments of the amounts of the three suit S.G.L. Transfer Form and repayment of another sum app. of Rs. 44.58 crores. 27. Thus in pleadings the case of the defendants is of squaring off and/or of repayment in the manner set out hereinabove. 28. Defendant 2 to 11 have also averred that Trustees are not necessary parties and should not have been impleaded. Defendants 2 to 11 also aver that they cannot be made personally liable. of Rs. 44.58 crores. 27. Thus in pleadings the case of the defendants is of squaring off and/or of repayment in the manner set out hereinabove. 28. Defendant 2 to 11 have also averred that Trustees are not necessary parties and should not have been impleaded. Defendants 2 to 11 also aver that they cannot be made personally liable. On these averments the following issues were raised : ISSUES 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the written statement of defendant No. 1? 2. Whether this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as alleged in para 1 of the written statement of defendant No. 1? 3. Whether the defendants are personally, jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs as averred in para 2 of the plaint ? 4. Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos. 2 to 11 is not maintainable as alleged in para 1 of the written statement of defendant Nos. 2 to 11? 5. Whether this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against defendants 2 to 11 as alleged in para 2 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11? 6. Whether the claim is barred by limitation as against defendants 2 to 11 as alleged in paras 3 and 10 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11? 7. Whether defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and 11 are not liable to the plaintiffs having ceased to be trustees as alleged in para 13 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11? 8. Whether there was an informal arrangement as stated in para 4 of the written statement whereby the plaintiffs at the directions of Hiten P. Dalal purported to buy securities from counter parties and whether subsequent purported sales of these securities were also negotiated by Mr. Hiten P. Dalal and disguised sales made at such negotiated prices to counter parties/banks designated by Mr. Hiten P. Dalal ? 9. Whether pursuant to the alleged informal arrangement stated in para 4 of the written statement, the plaintiffs had directly or indirectly lent and advanced monies to Mr. Hiten P. Dalal under purported transaction of face value of Rs. 58.39 crores and/or face value of Rs. 60 crores which are part of their transactions involving the plaintiffs, Mr. 9. Whether pursuant to the alleged informal arrangement stated in para 4 of the written statement, the plaintiffs had directly or indirectly lent and advanced monies to Mr. Hiten P. Dalal under purported transaction of face value of Rs. 58.39 crores and/or face value of Rs. 60 crores which are part of their transactions involving the plaintiffs, Mr. Hiten Dalal, Bank of Karad and Citibank by which Hiten P. Dalal received directly or indirectly monies from the plaintiffs which he subsequently repaid ? 10. Whether the suit transactions entered into by the plaintiffs with the Canbank Mutual Fund were in fact entered into by the plaintiffs on behalf of Hiten Dalal as alleged in para 5(d) of the written statement of defendant No. 1? 11. Whether in such transactions, plaintiffs were carrying Hiten P. Dalals open position as their own position as stated in para 4 of the written statement ? 12. Whether in the suit transactions the defendants fund was used as intermediary for transfer of monies advanced by the plaintiffs to Mr. Hiten P. Dalal ? 13. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they received half yearly interest due on 23-11-1991 on securities covered under suit S.G.L.s on or about 25-11-1991 as alleged in para 11 of the plaint ? 14. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they had presented the S.G.L. dated 23-8-1991 for . Rs. 7 crores on the dates as alleged in para 10 of the plaint ? 15. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 3 S.G.L. Transfer Forms were presented by the plaintiffs to R.B.I. on at least one occasion between 20-12-1991 and 14-5-1992 as alleged in the plaint? 16. Whether the liability of the defendants to the plaintiffs under the transactions engaged in between the parties on 23-8-1991, 28-8-1991 and 4-9-1991 stood squared off as alleged in para 5(1) of the written statement of defendant No. 1? 17 Whether the transactions between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendants as also the transactions between the 1st defendants and the Bank of Karad was squared off by Hiten Dalal as alleged in para 5(1) of the written statement of defendant No. 1? 18. Whether the liability of the defendants under the 3 S.G.L. Transfer Forms under the transactions engaged between the parties on 23-8-1991, 26-8-1991 and 4-9-1991 stood squared off as alleged in para 7 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11 ? 19. 18. Whether the liability of the defendants under the 3 S.G.L. Transfer Forms under the transactions engaged between the parties on 23-8-1991, 26-8-1991 and 4-9-1991 stood squared off as alleged in para 7 of the written statement of defendants 2 to 11 ? 19. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree in the sum of Rs. 72, 35, 31,081.95 or any other sum together with interest on the principal sum adjudicated at the rate of 20% per annum or at any other rate as claimed by the plaintiffs ? 20. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief and if so what ? 21. Costs ? 29. THE ISSUES ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY : Issue No. 1 : In the negative. Issue No. 2 : In the negative. Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 : Not pressed. Issue No. 6 : Does not arise. Issue No. 7 : Does not arise. Issue No. 8: In the negative. Issue No. 9 : In the negative. Issue No. 10 : In the negative. Issue No. 11 : In the negative. Issue No. 12 : In the negative. Issue No. 13 : Not proved. Issue No. 14 : In the negative. Issue No. 15 : In the negative. Issue No. 16 : In the negative. Issue No. 17 : In the negative. Issue No. 18 : In the negative. Issue No. 19, 20 and 21 : In the affirmative and as set out in the Order hereinafter. REASONS 3O. ISSUE No. 1 :---It is an admitted position that Mr. Hiten Dalal was a Broker in the three suit S.G.L. transactions. Mr. Thacker submitted that this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit only because a notified party viz., Mr. Hiten Dalal was involved in the suit transactions as a Broker. He submitted that it was therefore necessary that Mr. Hiten Dalal should have been made a party to this suit. He submitted that the real truth could only have come before this Court if Mr. Hiten Dalal was present before this Court. He submitted that as Mr. Hiten Dalal was not a party the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party and is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 31. I am unable to accept this submission. Undoubtedly this Court has assumed jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that Mr. Hiten Dalal was present before this Court. He submitted that as Mr. Hiten Dalal was not a party the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party and is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 31. I am unable to accept this submission. Undoubtedly this Court has assumed jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that Mr. Hiten Dalal was involved as a Broker in the suit transactions. But merely because Hiten Dalal was involved as a broker does not mean that Mr. Hiten Dalal was either a necessary or a proper party. The transactions remain security transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants. These are genuine security transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants. If that be so, for the purpose of the suit the only necessary parties are the plaintiffs and the defendants. They are both before the Court. Under these circumstances, Issue No. 1 has been answered in the negative. 32. ISSUE No. 2 : Mr. Thacker fairly stated that Issue No. 2 is already covered by the order of the Bombay High Court dated 24th February, 1994. He submits that in view of the order, it is not possible for him to make any further submissions on Issue No. 2. 33. Mr. Cooper points out that Issue No. 2 would also be covered by an order of this Court dated 25th October, 1994 in Notice of Motion No. 5 of 1994 taken out in this suit. It may only be mentioned that this was a Notice of Motion for stay of this suit. This on the ground that there was a prior suit between the same parties in respect of the subject matter of this suit. The prior suit being Bombay High Court suit No. 2796 of 1992. This Notice of Motion was dismissed by an order dated 25th October, 1994. In both these above mentioned orders it has been held that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 has been answered in the negative. 34. ISSUE Nos. 3, 4 5 : Mr. This Notice of Motion was dismissed by an order dated 25th October, 1994. In both these above mentioned orders it has been held that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 has been answered in the negative. 34. ISSUE Nos. 3, 4 5 : Mr. Salve stated to the Court, on instructions from Canara Bank, that : (a) Canbank Mutual Fund has sufficient funds in order to enable them to pay off the entire decretal amount ; (b) that in the event of there being any deficiency in the decretal amount, which remains unsatisfied by Canbank Mutual Fund, Canara Bank will make good that deficiency to the plaintiffs; and (c) for the purpose of this suit only Canara Bank is becoming personally liable on the decree which may be passed. 35. In view of these statements, Mr. Cooper is not pressing for a decree against defendant Nos. 2 to 11. Under these circumstances, Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have not been pressed in this suit. 36. ISSUE Nos. 6 7 : Since Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have not been pressed, in my view these issues do not survive. 37. ISSUE Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 12 : So far as these issues are concerned, Mr. Thacker has very fairly admitted that there is no evidence to support these issues. Accordingly these issues will have to be and are answered in the negative. 38. ISSUE No. 13 : Mr. Cooper has fairly stated that there is no evidence to support Issue No. 13. Accordingly it will have to be held that the plaintiffs have not proved that they have received the half yearly interest due on 23rd November, 1991. Thus the issue is answered as not proved. However Mr. Cooper fairly informs the Court that, on 25th November, 1991, the plaintiffs have received half yearly interest due on 23rd November, 1991. It has also been so averred in the plaint. If the Court were not to take this fact into consideration, it would adversely affect the defendants. The defendants would then become liable to pay the interest for this period also. In my view, even though there is no evidence, on the admission made by Mr. Cooper the Court must take note of the fact that the said half yearly interest was received by the plaintiffs on 25th November, 1991. The defendants would then become liable to pay the interest for this period also. In my view, even though there is no evidence, on the admission made by Mr. Cooper the Court must take note of the fact that the said half yearly interest was received by the plaintiffs on 25th November, 1991. In my view on this admission the Court must give to the defendants the benefit of this admission in the final order. 39. ISSUE No. 14 : Mr. Cooper admits that there is no evidence in support of this issue. Accordingly this issue will have to be and is answered in the negative. 40. ISSUE No. 15 : Mr. Cooper admits that there is no evidence in support of this issue. Accordingly this issue will have to be and is answered in the negative. 41. ISSUE No. 16 : Mr. Thacker submitted that this issue must be answered in the affirmative. He submitted that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that they have received half yearly interest due on 23rd December, 1991. He submitted that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove that they had presented the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms to the R.B.I. between 20th December, 1991 and 14th May, 1992. He submitted that admittedly the S.G.L. Transfer Form for Rs. 7 Crores was split up into two S.G.L. Transfer Forms of Rs. 5.39 crores and Rs. 1.61 crores. He submitted that the S.G.L. Transfer Form of Rs. 1.61 crores was honored. He submitted that the remaining S.G.L. Transfer Forms are of Rs 58.39 crores. He submits that this is the exact amount due and payable by the Bank of Karad to the defendants. He submitted that Mr. Hiten Dalal was admittedly a Broker in the suit transactions and a Broker in the transactions between the defendants and the Bank of Karad. He submitted that all these facts put together clearly establish that there was a squaring off of all these three transactions with the transaction of the defendants with the Bank of Karad. He submitted that this case of squaring off is therefore proved. 42. I am unable to accept these submissions. There is absolutely no evidence of any squaring off. On the contrary the evidence of the defendants witness Mr. Ramaraj, part of which is set out hereafter, shows that there is no squaring off. Mr. He submitted that this case of squaring off is therefore proved. 42. I am unable to accept these submissions. There is absolutely no evidence of any squaring off. On the contrary the evidence of the defendants witness Mr. Ramaraj, part of which is set out hereafter, shows that there is no squaring off. Mr. Ramaraj has deposed that there had been no squaring off. In the light of this positive evidence, that there had been no squaring off, it is not possible to accept submissions based merely on circumstances. Even presuming that the above evidence was not there, still the above circumstances do not lead to proof of squaring off. At the highest they would show an intention to square off. The actual squaring off would then have to follow. The three S.G.L. Transfer Forms would have to be returned discharged to the defendants. This has admittedly not happened. the Bank of Karad would have to deliver securities or make payment to the plaintiffs. There is no evidence of that. On the contrary the evidence of Mr. Ramaraj shows that there was no repayment. Defendants would have to duly discharge the S.G.L. Transfer Form received from the Bank of Karad. There is no evidence that at any stage the defendants discharged that S.G.L. Transfer Form. During his evidence Mr. Ramaraj has been careful enough not to depose that the liability of Bank of Karad to the defendants stands discharged. If the liability of the Bank of Karad to the defendants still continues, then there can be no squaring off. 43. Another reason why this submission cannot be accepted is that no connection has been shown between the defendants transaction with the Bank of Karad and the defendants transactions with the plaintiffs. The purported arrangement between plaintiffs and Mr. Hiten Dalal has not been proved. Accordingly, this issue answered in the negative. 44. ISSUE No. 17 : Mr. Thacker has stated that there is no evidence on this issue. Accordingly, this issue has been answered in the negative . 45. ISSUE No. 18 : This is the issue on the case of repayment. Mr. Thacker submitted that Exhibit 4 to the written statement shows that there have been substantial repayments under the transactions set out therein. Thacker has stated that there is no evidence on this issue. Accordingly, this issue has been answered in the negative . 45. ISSUE No. 18 : This is the issue on the case of repayment. Mr. Thacker submitted that Exhibit 4 to the written statement shows that there have been substantial repayments under the transactions set out therein. He submitted that once it is shown that there have been substantial repayments the burden shifted on the plaintiffs to show that these repayments were not towards the suit transactions. He submitted that as the plaintiffs have failed to discharge this burden, it must be presumed that these substantial repayments were towards the three suit transactions. 46. In my view, it is not possible to accept such a submission. First of all Exhibit 4 to the written statement has not been proved before this Court. It is not proved or even shown to Court that the transactions mentioned in Exhibit 4 to the written statement have taken place. Before this Court no evidence has been led to show that any such transaction (shown in Exhibit 4 to the written statement) had taken place or that there had been any repayment under any such transaction. Even if one were to presume that there were such transactions, the evidence of Mr. Ramaraj shows that far from repayment, Exhibit 4 to the written statement makes out a case that the liability of Mr. Hiten Dalal to the plaintiffs had gone up astronomically. 47. Also, in my view, it was not sufficient for the defendants to show that there had been payments made, by the Bank of Karad to the plaintiffs, under some transactions. Both the plaintiffs and the Bank of Karad were regularly undertaking transactions in securities. There are bound to be payments made under such genuine transactions. Payments made under genuine transactions cannot be said to be repayment for some other liability. What was necessary to be shown by the defendants was that all the transactions under Exhibit 4 to the written statement were fictitious/bogus transactions. It was for the defendants to show that these were bogus transactions in which there was no delivery of securities. It was for the defendants to show that the payments made to the plaintiffs under such bogus transactions was repayment of monies received by the defendants from the plaintiffs under the three transactions in suit. It was for the defendants to show that these were bogus transactions in which there was no delivery of securities. It was for the defendants to show that the payments made to the plaintiffs under such bogus transactions was repayment of monies received by the defendants from the plaintiffs under the three transactions in suit. In my view the entire burden was on the defendants. They have failed to discharge that burden. The defendants had not been able to prove anything. Under these circumstances, Issue No. 18 has been answered in the negative. 48. There is one other aspect which must be mentioned. Exhibit 4 to the written statement shows payment of an amount of app. Rs. 103 crores. This is allegedly by way of differences in the purchase or sale prices of the same securities. The defendants claim that this is repayment of Rs. 58.39 crores under the suit transactions and Rs. 44.58 crores under the defendants transaction with Citi bank. However what this ignores is that the figures of Rs. 58.39 and Rs. 44.58 crores are of the fact value of the securities. They are not the consideration paid under the transactions. For example in the suit transactions the consideration is Rs. 60,64,71,275.12p. Thus in the suit transactions if there was repayment as alleged, it would have to be not of Rs. 58.39 crores but of 60,64,71,275.12p. It is not even the defendants case that there is repayment of this amount. 49. ISSUE NOS. 19, 20 and 21 : It is admitted that said transactions were genuine transactions. It is admitted that the defendants had issued the three suit S.G.L. Transfer Forms. It is admitted that the defendants had received consideration for these S.G.L. Transfer Forms by way of pay orders as set out hereinabove. It is admitted that the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms were dishonoured when presented to the Reserve Bank of India. It cannot be denied that the defendants have not delivered securities under the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. In my view, the plaintiffs are thus entitled to a return of the amounts paid under the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. 50. The plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs. 72,35,31,081.91p. This consists of the principal amount of Rs. 60,64,71,275.12p alongwith interest at 20% from the dates of the transactions till payment or realisation thereof. In my view, the plaintiffs are thus entitled to a return of the amounts paid under the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. 50. The plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs. 72,35,31,081.91p. This consists of the principal amount of Rs. 60,64,71,275.12p alongwith interest at 20% from the dates of the transactions till payment or realisation thereof. As set out hereinabove, on all the three transactions, the plaintiffs had received half yearly interest on 25th November, 1991. In my view, the plaintiffs have accepted this half yearly interest on the footing that they were entitled to the securities on that date. they having accepted this interest, cannot now claim or be permitted to claim interest for the same period again. In my view, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim interest upto 25th November, 1991. After 25th November, 1991 as the defendants have neither delivered the securities nor repaid the price, the plaintiffs would be entitled to interest on the principal amount of Rs. 60,64,71,275.12p. The only question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest at 20% as claimed or at some other rate. 51. Mr. Salve submitted that the securities themselves were giving a yield of 11.5%. He submitted that the contract therefore provides for interest at 11.5% p.a. He submitted that the plaintiffs should not be granted interest at a rate higher than 11.5% p.a. What this argument overlooks is that these were securities transactions. Had the securities been delivered the plaintiffs would not have held on to them for all these years. The interest to be awarded in a suit for recovery of monies should not be made to depend on the yield. 52. There is another reason why this argument is also not acceptable to Court. The Court has been noticing that there is a growing tendency not to honour debts/commitments. The tendency now-a-days is to let the creditor go to Court. The tendency is to file some defense even when there is none. In many cases the defense taken is absolutely false. The whole intention is to use laws delays. Thereafter the attempt is to delay hearings as long as possible. It is only when it is found that it is not possible to delay any longer that, in most cases consent terms or a decree on admission are taken. In many cases the defense taken is absolutely false. The whole intention is to use laws delays. Thereafter the attempt is to delay hearings as long as possible. It is only when it is found that it is not possible to delay any longer that, in most cases consent terms or a decree on admission are taken. In some cases even at the stage of trial the false defence is persisted in with the intention of whiling away further time in appeals. In my view this is because parties know that litigation takes a number of years. In my view this is because parties know that ultimately the courts will only award nominal interest and costs. Also today litigation has become prohibitively expansive. Many parties with genuine cases cant afford to litigate. Just how expansive litigation is, best indicated by this case. Because litigation is so expansive and takes so long, many parties with genuine claims are forced to settle/compromise. They are forced to give up, in many cases, a substantial part of their genuine claim. Also even if a party ultimately succeeds he does not in reality get his entire claim. The amount actually spent by him in litigating is never awarded. The successful party is thus out of pocket. Nowadays this is in a sizable amount. This hurts the genuine party. The dishonest party does not mind. He is sitting on the property or money, using it and in most cases making money out of it. This further encourages parties to be dishonest. In my view it is time that Courts actively curbed this tendency to file false cases or to take up false defenses merely with a view to delay payment or deliver up property. In my view if a Court is convinced that an absolutely false case had been filed or an absolutely false defense has been taken up, with a view to use laws delays, than the Courts should now grant a prohibitively high rate of interest. In my view the Courts must now grant actual costs incurred in conducting the litigation. In my view a dishonest litigant must be made to bear not just his own costs but also the entire costs of the other party. In other words the litigation must be at the costs and consequences of the dishonest litigant. In my view the Courts must now grant actual costs incurred in conducting the litigation. In my view a dishonest litigant must be made to bear not just his own costs but also the entire costs of the other party. In other words the litigation must be at the costs and consequences of the dishonest litigant. In my view this is absolutely necessary, in present times, to bring home the message that using laws delays is not going to be remunerative. In my view it is time the message is brought home to dishonest litigants that using laws delays is going to be an expansive proposition. Of course I hasten to add that this drastic step must be taken and used very cautiously, sparingly and only in cases where the Court is certain that there is an absolutely false case or defense. To this Court it is clear that merely because a Court does not accept a case or defense is no ground for granting high interest or costs. It must also be mentioned that the Special Courts Act provides that the Civil Procedure Code does not apply. In my view, the facts set out hereafter, show that this is a fit case where high interest and actual costs must be awarded. It may only be mentioned that this Court has framed Regulations for conduct of trials before this Court. In these Regulations the Court has clarified that costs will include actual costs. 53. The 1st defendants i.e. Canara Bank is a Nationalised Bank. Canbank Mutual Fund is a Trust created by this Nationalised Bank. Most of the Trustees are Government Officers. One expects that such parties will come to Court with honest and clean hands. As set out above, on or about 30th July, 1992, Canbank Mutual Fund filed Suit No. 2796 of 1992 in the High Court of judicature at Bombay. In this suit solemn averments have been made that there was squaring off of the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. As this suit is still pending Court is not expressing any opinion in respect of the averments in that suit. However it must be mentioned that the evidence which has now come on record shows that latest by May, 1992 Canbank Mutual Fund was aware that there was no squaring off. 54. As this suit is still pending Court is not expressing any opinion in respect of the averments in that suit. However it must be mentioned that the evidence which has now come on record shows that latest by May, 1992 Canbank Mutual Fund was aware that there was no squaring off. 54. The plaintiffs herein filed in the High Court of judicature at Bombay Suit No. 3756 of 1992. This was to recover amounts paid under the three S.G.L. Transfer Forms. Thereafter the Special Courts Act was amended to give exclusive Civil Jurisdiction to this Court. The defendants filed a precipe in the High Court of judicature at Bombay for having Suit No. 2796 of 1992 transferred to this Court. They then withdrew that precipe. The plaintiffs applied for a transfer of their Suit No. 3756 of 1992 to this Court. That was opposed. It is clear that this was done because it was realised that if the two suits are transferred to this Court, they would be disposed off expeditiously and the defendants herein would not be able to enjoy delays of litigations. By an order dated 24th February 1994, the Bombay High Court rejected the plea of the defendants and transferred this suit to this Court. 55. Thereafter a notice of motion bearing No. 5 of 1994 is taken out in this Court for stay of this suit. In that notice of motion it is urged that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try Suit No. 2796 of 1992. It is urged that Suit No. 2796 of 1992 is the prior suit between the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter. The attempt clearly was to see that this suit gets stalled as long as it takes the Bombay High Court to dispose off that suit. This Court dismisses the notice of motion for stay by its order dated 25th October, 1994. Thereafter Suit No. 2796 of 1992 is got transferred to this Court and is numbered as Suit No. 31 of 1994. The returnable date of that suit is 6th December, 1994. 56. One week prior to 6th December, 1994 a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint is taken out. That Chamber Summons is rejected by an order dated 14th December, 1994. An appeal is filed in the Supreme Court against that order. The returnable date of that suit is 6th December, 1994. 56. One week prior to 6th December, 1994 a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint is taken out. That Chamber Summons is rejected by an order dated 14th December, 1994. An appeal is filed in the Supreme Court against that order. Before that appeal reaches hearing the trial of Suit No. 31 of 1994 starts. Pleadings are read, issues are raised. Time is then taken from this Court to bring witnesses before this Court. In fact one of the witnesses was present in Court. However Court was informed that the defendants herein wanted to lead the evidence of some other witnesses before that of the witness who was present in Court. This Court grants some time for this purpose. Having taken time from this Court the defendants then obtain a stay of their own suit from the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the defendants, the Supreme Court, whilst staying Suit No. 31 of 1994, clarified that this suit must proceed. 57. When this suit reached hearing, in spite of the clarification by the Supreme Court, it was sought to be contended that this suit must be adjourned because the other suit was stayed by the Supreme Court. This application was rejected by the Court. 58. Realising that it might be difficult to get an adjournment in this suit, just prior to the commencement of this suit, various applications were made for production of documents. These applications were disposed of by orders dated 12th January, 1995, 17th January, 1995 and 2nd February, 1995. 59. As stated above, the initial case made out in Suit No. 31 of 1994 was only a case of squaring off. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendants in this suit the only case made out was a case of squaring off. It is only after defendant Nos. 2 to 11 filed their written statement that a further case of repayment has been made out. The issues raised are only on these two cases i.e. the case of squaring off and the case of repayment. 60. In support of their case defendants led evidence of their witness Mr. S.R. Ramaraj. He is the Assistant General Manager of the defendants. He is the deponent of the written statements of defendant No. 1 as well as the written statement of defendants 2 to 11. 60. In support of their case defendants led evidence of their witness Mr. S.R. Ramaraj. He is the Assistant General Manager of the defendants. He is the deponent of the written statements of defendant No. 1 as well as the written statement of defendants 2 to 11. In his examination in chief he purports to support defendants case. In cross-examination whenever cornered he prevaricates. In spite of all his prevarication he is ultimately forced to admit the truth. As an example of his prevarication and the ultimate admission his evidence in respect of the case of squaring off may be set out herein. The final evidence on squaring off is on pages 39 to 42 of the Notes of Evidence. It is as follows: "Q : Would it be correct to say that according to you the squaring off did not take place before 31-12-91 ? Note : Witness asks for time to think and after some time answers as follows : A : In normal circumstances it would be true. The question is repeated to the witness. A : According to me it was squared off before 31-12-91. Q : If the squaring off had taken place prior to 31-12-91 then how can you maintain that the statement, in para 9 of plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1994 to the effect that the S.G.L. Transfer Forms issued by the Bank of Karad was outstanding till the year ending 1991, is correct ? A : What I said was that the squaring off had taken place before 31-12-91. Question is repeated to the witness. A : The communication was received only in January, 1992. It is correct that the liability under the S.G.L. Transfer Forms does not depend upon communication. Question from Court : This averment is made in July, 1992. If as you now say the communication was received in January, 1992, then how could this be a correct averment in July, 1992 ? A : We thought that the squaring off had taken place in or about January, 1992. P.C. The above answer given by the witness clearly shows that he is prevaricating and not answering truthfully. The witness is warned that he must give truthful evidence instead of trying to support his employers at any costs. Cross-examination continued. A : We thought that the squaring off had taken place in or about January, 1992. P.C. The above answer given by the witness clearly shows that he is prevaricating and not answering truthfully. The witness is warned that he must give truthful evidence instead of trying to support his employers at any costs. Cross-examination continued. Witness is shown averments to the same effect in paragraph 8 of affidavit dated 14-9-92 in notice of Motion No. 2244 of 1992. According to me this averment is correct. The communication which was received in January, 1992 was from Mr. Hiten Dalal to Mr. Anil Narichania. Mr. Anil Narichania had told me what Mr. Hiten Dalal had informed him. This was in October or November, 1993. I had read the office note of Mr. Anil Narichania. Witness is shown exhibit `P. It is correct that this Office Note makes it clear that Mr. Anil Narichania had only presumed that the squaring off has taken place as assured by the broker. It is correct that the Office Note does not mention that Mr. Hiten Dalal had given any information about the squaring off to Mr. Anil Narichania. It is correct that from the Office Note it is clear that the information given by the broker must be prior to 23-11-91. It is correct that this Office Note also shows that in February 1992 Canbank Mutual Fund was aware that there was no squaring off. It is correct that the office note shows that Canbank Mutual Fund knew that there had been no squaring off and that the broker was contacted again and that in spite of personal follow up the matter had not been solved till 27-5-92. Q : Would it not be correct to say that as the Canbank Mutual Fund, were at all stages till 27-5-92 aware that there was no squaring off, the case of squaring off in or about January, 1992 and the pretended surprise at the demand made by Standard Chartered Bank on 19-5-92 were false and made up? A : I do not know what was the material available with Canbank Mutual Fund when they made the averments in Suit No. 31 of 1994. Witness is shown para 5(n) of the written statement of the 1st defendant in this suit. It is correct that as late as 12-10-94 the same surprise has been repeated in this paragraph. A : I do not know what was the material available with Canbank Mutual Fund when they made the averments in Suit No. 31 of 1994. Witness is shown para 5(n) of the written statement of the 1st defendant in this suit. It is correct that as late as 12-10-94 the same surprise has been repeated in this paragraph. I say that I merely took this averment from the plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1994. It is correct that today I know that the averments in the plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1994 as well as in the written statement of defendant No. 1 in this suit are false." Thereafter on pages 52 and 53 of the Notes of Evidence the witness is forced to answer the following question as under: "Q: I put it to you that these defenses necessarily mean that the case pleaded in Suit No. 31 of 1994 is false? A: I would say that the case pleaded in Suit No. 31 of 1994 is incorrect. The same answer applies to the written statement of defendant No. 1 Q: If that is so why did you repeat the incorrect case in the written statement of defendants 2 to 11? A: As I was told that the paragraphs in the plaint had to be denied, for sake of brevity, I repeated the earlier averments. I now agree that it is a mistake." The above answers clearly establishes that defendants and Mr. Ramaraj were aware, at the time of filing written statement of defendants 2 to 11, that the case of squaring off was false. In fact they were so aware at least from May, 1992. Thus false averments have been made in the written statement of defendants 2 to 11. This as the witness Mr. Ramaraj has stated "Because the averments in the plaint had to be denied." As set out above the only other defense was of repayment. The defense is that up, after trying hard to evade, by saying as follows : "I agree that Exhibit 4 to the written statement does not show repayment of Rs. 58.39 crores and Rs. 44.58 crores but in fact shows that the liability of Mr. Hiten Dalal to the Standard Chartered Bank had increased astronomically." 62. It is after this evidence that Mr. 58.39 crores and Rs. 44.58 crores but in fact shows that the liability of Mr. Hiten Dalal to the Standard Chartered Bank had increased astronomically." 62. It is after this evidence that Mr. Salve informed the Court that, on the case of squaring off and/or repayment, defendants do not propose to lead any further evidence. Now an attempt is made to lead evidence to show that the plaintiffs were precluded from recovering under the suit transactions because they were against public policy. As per a separate ruling given on 3rd of March, 1995 this was not allowed. It is only then that the defendants close their case. 63. Thus it is clear that the defendants had no defense at all. The defendants did not honour their commitments. They then try to stall recovery by filing a suit on the ground that there was a squaring off. In this suit they file defenses off squaring off and repayment. They make all attempts to delay the hearing as long as possible. First by trying to see that the two suits are not transferred to this Court. When they fail in that attempt then they take out, just before the fixed date, various applications. They even manage to get their suit stayed. Now the evidence of their Assistant General Manager shows that defendants were aware, to say the least, before trial that the defenses raised by them were false. Yet issues are raised and evidence is led. Even after it becomes clear that the defense cant be sustained, the attempt is to try and bring in a totally new case which is not pleaded. Even now defendants dont submit to a decree. It is clear that the whole attempt is to try and while away as much time as possible in Appeal. This is a clear example of using laws delays. As this suit was transferred to this Court it is disposed off. Had it remained in the High Court on these false defenses defendants would have been able to avoid making payment for at least another 10 years. Even now they have been able to avoid honouring their commitments for app. 3-½ years. It must be mentioned that in the suit filed by Citibank against the defendants, one of the defenses raised is that there has been repayment under transactions in Exhibit 4 to the written statement. Even now they have been able to avoid honouring their commitments for app. 3-½ years. It must be mentioned that in the suit filed by Citibank against the defendants, one of the defenses raised is that there has been repayment under transactions in Exhibit 4 to the written statement. In my view, for reasons stated above, this is a fit case where the Court must grant interest at a high rate and where the Court must make the defendants bear the actual costs of litigation. In my view the entire costs and consequences must be on the defendants.