JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Suit has been filed, under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This Civil Suit has been filed, seeking a judgment and decree, directing the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,22,637/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the plaint till payment in full is made and for costs. 2. The case of the Plaintiff, in a nutshell, as set out, in the plaint is as follows:- a) The Plaintiff Company was incorporated in the year 1990 under the Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff Company was appointed as Sole National Distributors for Siemens Mobile Phone and Accessories on 19.10.2001. The Plaintiff Company approached the 2nd Defendant Bank for a loan of Rs.600 lakhs. The Defendants agreed to grant the Plaintiff Company a Letter of Credit/Cash credit facilities for Rs.600 lakhs on communication of the documents, namely, demand promissory note, letter of continuing security, hypothecation of stocks/book debts, personal guarantee of Lalchand Munoth, Jaswant Munoth, Bharat Munot and Vikas Munot, letter of credit applications and also mortgaging the Company-s property at No.343, Triplicane High Road, III Floor, Chennai-5, measuring 2755 sq.ft. held in the name of Munoth Investments Limited (presently known as Munoth Communication Limited) towards collateral security. b) The 2nd Defendant sanctioned a combined limit of Letter of Credit/Cash Credit of Rs.300 lakhs on 06.12.2001. The cash margin for the non fund based limit Letter of Credit was 50% and for Cash Credit, the margin was 25% (stock). The Plaintiff made a representation to the 2nd Defendant that they were not keen in utilizing the limits sanctioned to them, as it was not sufficient to operate. It was promised that the entire Rs.600 lakhs would be disbursed within one month of utilizing the initial limit of Rs.300 lakhs. The said combined Letter of Credit/Cash Credit facility was utilised on 15.04.2002. The Plaintiff Company executed documents and created a charge with the Registrar of Companies for Rs.600 lakhs as required by the Bank. c) The Plaintiff Company was importing phones from Siemens on usance Letter of Credit (30 days) and it was able to sell the phones and pay the Bank within 30 days, resulting in Cash Credit being used rarely. The Plaintiff Company executed documents and created a charge with the Registrar of Companies for Rs.600 lakhs as required by the Bank. c) The Plaintiff Company was importing phones from Siemens on usance Letter of Credit (30 days) and it was able to sell the phones and pay the Bank within 30 days, resulting in Cash Credit being used rarely. Morever, as the Plaintiff Company was opening Letter of Credit continuously, the Company was provided a cash margin of Rs.150 lakhs (Clause 4 of Sanction Letter, dated 06.12.2001- Cash Margin of Rs.150 lakhs should be available on permanent basis as Letter of Credits are required to be opened on a continuous basis). The Cash Credit facility was secured by hypothecation of stocks, personal guarantee and equitable mortgage. d) In July 2002, the 2nd Defendant increased the combined Letter of Credit/Cash Credit limits to Rs.450 lakhs and the cash margin from the non fund based limit (Letter of Credit) was reduced to 35% and for cash credit, the margin was released at 25% (stock). As per the sanction order, the combined Letter of Credit/Cash Credit limit of Rs.450 lakhs was secured by (1) deed of promissory notes, (2) hypothecation of inventory and receivables and (3) cash margin of 35% of Letter of Credit Limits, equitable mortgage of properties amounting to Rs.138.87 lacs. e) The Company was enjoying a combined Letter of Credit/Cash Credit limit. For the Letter of Credit portion a cash margin of 35% was to be provided and for Cash Credit a margin 25% (stock) was to be provided apart from hypothecation of stocks. Monthly stock statements to avail Cash Credit limits were submitted regularly and the required 25% margin (stock) was maintained. The Plaintiff Company wanted to utilize the limits of Rs.600 lakhs, for which, it executed documents and created a charge with the Registrar of Companies, as required by the 2nd Defendant Bank. The 2nd Defendant asked the Plaintiff to provide Rs.10 lakhs Recurring Deposit every month beginning August 2002. f) On 18.01.2003, the Plaintiff Company opened a second Cash Credit account (5096) linked to the unutilised Fixed Deposit lying with the Defendant Bank and it was allowed to draw 90% of the unutilised Fixed Deposit at interest rate of 2% more than the Fixed Deposit rate and this limit was within the overall limit of Rs.450 lakhs. f) On 18.01.2003, the Plaintiff Company opened a second Cash Credit account (5096) linked to the unutilised Fixed Deposit lying with the Defendant Bank and it was allowed to draw 90% of the unutilised Fixed Deposit at interest rate of 2% more than the Fixed Deposit rate and this limit was within the overall limit of Rs.450 lakhs. The 2nd Defendant unilaterally created another Fixed Deposit after the Recurring Deposit was closed rather than crediting the Cash Credit account though the Plaintiff did not authorise the 2nd Defendant to do so and the 2nd Defendant Bank acted without any mandate from the Plaintiff. In 2004, the 2nd Defendant was charging the same interest in both the Cash Credit account Nos.5092 and 5096. The 2nd Defendant did not reverse the excess interest. The Plaintiff sent a letter dated, 06.07.2004, claiming interest refund to the tune of Rs.19,40,637/-. The 2nd Defendant informed that he found that an excess interest to the tune of Rs.5.38 lakhs as per his calculation has been over charged and also informed the 1st Defendant vide letter dated, 17.07.2004, with a copy marked to the Plaintiff. g) The 2nd Defendant unilaterally credited a sum of Rs.3,11,000/- vide letter dated 29.9.2004. The Plaintiff sent a letter dated 6.10.2004. In the interest calculation sheet provided by the Defendant Bank along with a letter dated 29.9.2004. 35% cash has been calculated on the entire combined limit of Letter of Credit and Cash Credit, which is against the terms of sanction. The 2nd Defendant, as per the sanction letter, should have taken 35% cash margin on only letter of credit and not on cash credit as the Plaintiff was providing 25% margin (stock) and hypothecation of stock for cash credit limits utilised. There was no response from the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff sent a letter dated, 18.01.2005 to the 1st Defendant explaining their stance. The Plaintiff also sent letters dated, 24.02.2005, 16.03.2005 and 19.7.2005. A reply dated 22.7.2005 was received, calling them to attend a meeting with the 1st Defendant on 29.07.2005, wherein it was informed that no refund of interest was possible. Again, the Plaintiff also sent letters dated 30.07.2005 and 22.09.2005 to the Defendants. The Plaintiff was not allowed to utilise the limit of Rs.600 lakhs though a recurring deposit of Rs.1 lakh per month was provided. Again, the Plaintiff also sent letters dated 30.07.2005 and 22.09.2005 to the Defendants. The Plaintiff was not allowed to utilise the limit of Rs.600 lakhs though a recurring deposit of Rs.1 lakh per month was provided. Hence, the Plaintiff could not buy adequate stocks and there was a drastic reduction in turnover. The sale which was Rs.19.40 crores in FYE.31.03.2003, came down to Rs.6.79 crores in FYE.3103.2004. Thus, the Plaintiff incurred a loss of Rs.100.96 lakhs in FYE.31.03.2004. The Plaintiff suffered damages towards excess interest wrongly charged by the Defendants to the tune of Rs.16,29,637/- in the cash credit account sanctioned by the Defendants, loss incurred due to non disbursement of the entire loan amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,93,000/- and damages suffered by the Company by loss of credibility with Siemens amounting to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In such circumstances, this Civil Suit has been filed, seeking the reliefs, as stated above. 3. The case of the Defendants, in a nutshell, as set out in the written statement, filed by the 2nd Defendant, is as follows:- a) The Plaintiff Company had applied for a cash credit cum import letter of credit facility of Rs.6 crores and since the limits sought exceeded the sanctioning powers of the 2nd Defendant, the Defendants granted sanction for Rs.300 lakhs for such facility, which was communicated to the Plaintiff by their letter dated, 6.12.2001 and as per the letter dated 23.04.2002, the Plaintiff had accepted the terms and conditions of such sanction without any reservations. The Plaintiff had to maintain 50% cash margin for letter of credit facility and 25% margin for cash credit facility and the total outstanding in both the account shall not exceed Rs.300 lakhs. The Plaintiff had executed necessary loan documents, including the demand promissory note, dated 15.04.2002. The Plaintiff was called upon to execute documents only for Rs.3 crores, but the Plaintiff had created documents for Rs.6 crores on their own. On 26.02.2002, the Plaintiff requested for enhancement of the limit to Rs.6 crores. On 26.07.2002, it was enhanced to Rs.4.5 crores. b) As per the terms of the sanction, the Plaintiff had to maintain 35% cash margin. The Plaintiff had accepted the terms and conditions by their letter dated, 13.05.2003. The Plaintiff executed necessary documents on 01.08.2002. On 26.02.2002, the Plaintiff requested for enhancement of the limit to Rs.6 crores. On 26.07.2002, it was enhanced to Rs.4.5 crores. b) As per the terms of the sanction, the Plaintiff had to maintain 35% cash margin. The Plaintiff had accepted the terms and conditions by their letter dated, 13.05.2003. The Plaintiff executed necessary documents on 01.08.2002. The Plaintiff also created an equitable mortgage over their property at No.343, Triplicane High Road on 6.09.2002 for such credit facility of Rs.4.5 crores. The Plaintiff had to provide additional cash margin of Rs.10 lakhs per month and the Plaintiff provided the same for the period from 12.9.2002 till 9.9.2003. As per the letter dated 26.06.2002, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff had provided the recurring deposits under compulsion. Since the claim of excess interest of Rs.19,40,637/- of the Plaintiff vide letter dated, 6.7.2004, was incorrect, it was found that an amount of Rs.3,11,000/- was charged by correct calculation, which was informed by letter dated 29.9.2004 and it was credited to the account of the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not agree to grant such a combined limit of Rs.6 crores. The Defendants are not aware of the dealing with Siemens. The Defendants did not promise to sanction a limit of Rs.6 crores. No promise that the entire Rs.6 crores would be disbursed within one month of utilizing the initial Rs.3 crores was made. The limit was increased by the 1st Defendant. c) The fixed deposit was opened only at the instance of the Plaintiff to build up security so as to increase the limits from Rs.300 lakhs to Rs.450 lakhs. The averments regarding excess interest to the tune of Rs.5.38 lakhs are false. The averment regarding cash margin is also false. Pursuant to the letter dated, 19.7.2005 of the Plaintiff, a meeting was held on 29.07.2005, wherein the correct position was explained and informed that their request for further refund could not be considered and the Plaintiff also accepted the same. The averments relating to reduction in sales turn over and business loss are baseless and the Defendants cannot be made responsible for the same. The Plaintiff by letter dated 24.02.2004 had stated that since they were concentrating mainly on their new retail business, enhancement of limit from Rs.4.5 Crores was not required. The averments relating to reduction in sales turn over and business loss are baseless and the Defendants cannot be made responsible for the same. The Plaintiff by letter dated 24.02.2004 had stated that since they were concentrating mainly on their new retail business, enhancement of limit from Rs.4.5 Crores was not required. The averments regarding the claim of quantum of loss of Rs.1,00,93,000/- and the quantum of damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- are fictitious. The Defendants are not liable to pay Rs.16,29,637/- towards excess interest. The claim of the Plaintiff towards excess interest is baseless. The claims as regards the loss due to alleged on disbursement of the loan amount, alleged loss of credibility with Siemens and excess interest are baseless and fictitious and also time barred. The Defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 04.08.2009:- (1) Whether the 1st Defendant has wrongly charged excess interest in the cash credit account of the Plaintiff? (2) Whether the Plaintiff suffered loss on account of the non disbursement of the sanctioned credit limit by the Defendants? (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for the loss of reputation and credibility in the business on account of the negligence or inaction in disbursing the sanctioned amount? (4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the Defendants for a sum of Rs.2,17,22,637/- with 18% interest? (5)To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled?” 5. On the side of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked and on the side of defendant, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 were marked. 6. Issue Nos.1 to 4: The Plaintiff would submit that they their company was sanctioned a combined limit of Letter of credit/ Cash credit of Rs.3 Crores on 06.12.2001 by the second defendant and in turn they proceed to execute Demand Promissory Note, Letter of continuing security, Hypothecation of Stocks/ Book Debts, Personal Guarantee and Mortgaging Company’s Property as collateral security. The cash margin for the non-fund based limit letter of credit was 50% and for cash credit the margin was 25% Stock. The cash margin for the non-fund based limit letter of credit was 50% and for cash credit the margin was 25% Stock. It is further argued by the plaintiff that from the beginning they had sought loan for Rs.6 Crores from the defendants bank and on sanction of cash credit cum import LC limit for Rs.3 Crores by the defendants and they had assured that the entire amount of Rs.6 Crores would be disbursed within one month of utilizing the initial Rs.3 Crores and it was utilized on 15.04.2002. 7. The plaintiff further argued that they had executed the documents and created charge for Rs.6 Crores with the Registrar of Companies establishes that they are willing and complying with all requirements as demanded by the defendants bank. But as to why the defendant proceed to accept the charge created for Rs.6 Crores when the plaintiff was called upon to create charge with Registrar of Companies only for Rs.3 Crores. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that they were left to believe and continue the business under the impression that the defendant bank will increase the limit to Rs.6 Crores as promised, thus leading to the loss of business. The plaintiff would further submit that the plaintiff had requested the defendant for enhancement of LC limit to Rs.6 Crores and committed to make fixed deposit of Rs.5 to 10 Lakhs every month for a period of one year for internal accruals. 8. Consequent to the request the Defendant increased the combined letter of credit /Cash credit limit to Rs.4.5 Crores and cash margin for the non-fund based limit [letter of credit] was reduced to 35% and for cash credit , the margin was retained at 25% [stock]. The plaintiff would submit that in terms of such enhanced limit to Rs.4.5 Crores and towards security the defendant bank obtained demand promissory note, Hypothecation of inventory and receivables; Cash margin of 35% on letter of credit limits and Equitable mortgage of properties amounting to Rs.138.87 Lakhs and further as demanded by the second defendant the plaintiff made the recurring deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs every month. It is further argued that in spite of all such compliance the defendant bank not enhanced the limit to Rs.6 Crores is deceptive and misleading. It is further argued that in spite of all such compliance the defendant bank not enhanced the limit to Rs.6 Crores is deceptive and misleading. The plaintiff further argued that without notice the second defendant unilaterally created another fixed deposit after the recurring deposit was closed instead of crediting the cash credit account. 9. It is further submitted that on 18.01.2003 the plaintiff opened a second cash credit account[ 5096] linked to the utilized fixed deposit lying with the defendant bank and in which they were allowed to draw 90 % of un-utilized fixed deposit at the interest rate of 2 % and the said limit was within the overall limit of Rs.4.5 Crores. It is further argued that the second defendant bank was charging the same interest in both the cash credit accounts of plaintiff and it was brought to this notice. Inspite of which the interest was not reversed and so the plaintiff communicated the same by its letter dated 06.07.2004 [Exhibit –P8] along with the working sheet and requested the second defendant to reverse a sum of Rs.19,40,637/- towards excess interest which was charged. For which the second defendant also sent vide its letter dated 17.07.2004 [Exhibit-P9] formed the first defendant that excess interest to the tune of Rs.5.38 Lakhs has been charged from the plaintiff account, but in contra the second defendant proceeded to credit only a sum of Rs.3.11 Lakhs unilaterally towards wrongfully charged interest. 10. So the second defendant had wrongly charged excess interest in the cash credit account of plaintiff to the tune of Rs.19,40,637/ and had failed to reverse the same. Inspite of further letter dated 06.10.2004 [Exhibit-P11] for the reply letter from Second defendant dated 29.09.2004 [Exhibit-P10] stating that the 35% cash margin has been calculated on the entire combined limit of letter of credit and cash credit. The second defendant has called for meeting on 22.07.2005[Exhibit-P17] and informed the stand of the bank that there that there is no possibility for refund. 11. It is further argued by the plaintiff side that despite creating charge with the ROC for Rs.6 Crores and payment of recurring deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs per month from August, 2002, the defendant failed to enhance the limit to Rs.6 Crores which subsequently resulted in a situation where the plaintiff could not buy adequate stock from Siemens resulting in drastic reduction in turnover. The Plaintiff further argued that they incurred a loss of Rs.100.96 for the financial year 2003-2004, which is established by the Audited Financial Statement of their Company [Exhibit-P7]. It is further submitted the reduction in the sales and incurred loss was caused due to act of defendant bank in not allowing the Plaintiff to avail the entire limit of Rs.6 Crores despite plaintiff complying with all the demands of Defendant Bank. So due to defendant failure to sanction LC limit of Rs.6 Crores despite acceptance of creation charge with ROC and payment of Recurring Deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs per month from August, 2002 led the plaintiff to incur financial loss in business. Hence the plaintiff has sought for decreeing the above suit as prayed for with costs. 12. The defendants in contra and countered the submissions of plaintiff in support of the plaint averments and the documents filed in support thereof. The defendants side filed their Written statement and filed their side documents in support thereof. They have also examined two witnesses on their side Viz. One Mr.Tony Jayant, the Chief manager had been examined as DW1 and Mr.R.krishnan, the Chief manager of the second defendant bank branch had been examined as DW2 .The defendant side would submit that the communication dated 06.12.2001 regarding Sanction for Cash credit Cum import LC Limit of Rs.3 Crores had been accepted by the Plaintiff in terms and conditions of sanction without any demur or objections which is seen from their letter dated 23.04.2002. As per the terms of sanction for the combined letter of credit cum cash facility with the limit of Rs.3 Crores the plaintiff had to maintain 50% cash margin for letter of credit facility and 25% margin for the Cash Credit Facility. 13. It is further argued that the loan documents including the demand Promissory Note dated 15.04.2022 [Exhibit-P3]. It is further stated that the plaintiff was called upon to execute documents only to the extent of Rs.3 Crores but they had executed documents and created charge under Form 8 and 13 with the Registrar of Companies for Rs.6 Crores on their own free will and volition in their eagerness. It is further stated that the plaintiff was called upon to execute documents only to the extent of Rs.3 Crores but they had executed documents and created charge under Form 8 and 13 with the Registrar of Companies for Rs.6 Crores on their own free will and volition in their eagerness. It is submitted that the Bank called upon the plaintiff to execute the documents and to create charge with the registrar of companies only for the sum of Rs.3 Crores being the combined letter secured by the hypothecation of stocks, the personal guarantee of the Directors of the plaintiff, the corporate guarantee of M/s.Munoth Investments Ltd., and also equitable mortgage over the property belonging to M/s.Munoth Investments Ltd., 14. The defendants side would further submit that though the plaintiff had applied for combined limit of Rs.6 Crores it was made clear to them that since the limits sought exceeded sanctioning powers of the second defendant branch the proposal was to be decided by the Regional office and no promise or guarantee regarding the quantum of actual sanction could be given at that stage. After the regional office of defendant Bank had sanctioned the Cash credit cum Import letter of credit limit of Rs.3 Crores to plaintiff , the plaintiff had under a letter requested for temporarily substituting the property of M/s.Munoth Investments Ltd., at No.48, III Floor, No.343, Triplicane High Road, instead the property of M/s.Munoth industries ltd., as Collateral security. The bank letter dated 13.04.2002 [Exhibit-D7] about sanction of initial amount of Rs.3 Crores limit was accepted by the plaintiff without any demur. 15. The Plaintiff subsequently on 26.06.2002 requested for enhancement of the limit to Rs.6 Crores from Rs.3 Crores, the Branch manager had forwarded the said request to the Regional office and in turn they after considering the operation of the account by the plaintiff the financial parameters pertaining to the plaintiff etc., they had sanctioned the enhancement of the Cash credit cum import letter of credit limit to Rs.4.50 Crores. As per the terms of the sanction the plaintiff had to maintain 35% Cash margin. The plaintiff had executed the required documents on 01.08.2002 the enhanced combined letter of credit cum cash credit facility with limit of Rs.4.50 Crores was secured by hypothecation of stocks of plaintiff , personal guarantee of directors of the plaintiff , the corporate guarantee of M/s.Munoth investments ltd. The plaintiff had executed the required documents on 01.08.2002 the enhanced combined letter of credit cum cash credit facility with limit of Rs.4.50 Crores was secured by hypothecation of stocks of plaintiff , personal guarantee of directors of the plaintiff , the corporate guarantee of M/s.Munoth investments ltd. a sister concern and equitable mortgage over the properties belonging to M/s.Munoth investments ltd., and plaintiff and they had created Equitable Mortgage over the property at No.343, Triplicane High Road on 06.09.2002. 16. It is further argued that the memorandum relating to creation of Equitable Mortgage over the above said property and recorded by the second defendant the facilities secured has been set out as follows :- To secure the Letter of Credit Limit and Cash credit limit in the overall sum of Rs.4.50 Crores sanctioned by the bank to M/s. Munoth Industries Ltd., and interest thereon and all costs , charges, expenses incurred by and or payable to the bank by the said M/s. Munoth Industries Ltd., 17. The Memorandum relating to the creation of equitable mortgage is marked as Exhibit- B8. It is further submitted as also agreed by plaintiff that they had to provide additional Cash margin of Rs.10 Lakhs per month. In fact the plaintiff had provided Rs.10 Lakhs recurring deposit every month beginning for the period from 12.09.2002 till 09.09.2003 to strengthen the security as stipulated in the sanction. Further it argued that the plaintiff stand committed to make deposits of Rs.5 to 10 Lakhs every month for a period of one year and so the plaintiff cannot simply comes and say that they had provided Recurring deposits under compulsion. Such a submission from the defendants is acceptable as it’s clearly evidenced from the documents marked in the suit. In fact the plaintiff cannot be estopped from denying the factor which has been duly admitted by them. 18. The defendants would further submit that during the month of July,2003 the plaintiff made the request seeking overdraft facility against the excess fixed deposits and which was sanctioned by the General Manager , South Zone vide .their letter dated 06.08.2003 [ Exhibit- B11] and which is stated as follows: The company has already built up cash margin at 35% on the entire L.C. Limit of Rs.4.50 Crores .As per sanction terms you may consider granting over draft against their fixed deposits with our branch observing bank’s guidelines”. 19. 19. It is further argued that as per sanction of over draft to the plaintiff as against their excess fixed deposit, which was availed by them, the plaintiff had to maintain cash margin of 35% on the entire limit of Rs.4.50 Crores and they maintained thus. Hence, the contention of plaintiff that cash margin of 35% has to be maintained only on the Letter of credits alone and the working of refund of interest has to be calculated on such a basis is incorrect. In such circumstances the claim of plaintiff about charging of interest in the Cash credit account numbers 5092 and 5096 vide their letter dated 06.07.2004 and sought for interest refund to the tune of Rs.19,40,637/- is not correct. Further it is argued by the defendants side that the second defendant i.e., the bank branch head of Triplicane branch had only addressed a letter to their Regional head seeking advice as to whether the calculation of interest to be refunded at Rs.5.38Lakhs was correct. 20. It is further submitted that the regional office got shocked as to how the internal communication between them had come to the hands of plaintiff. Consequently they came to know that the said letter was obtained by plaintiff in a irregular and improper manner as no copy has been marked to them. Anyhow to put it straight the defendants after considering and scrutinizing the records and the interest calculation working sheet they had found that only a sum of Rs.3,11,000/- was charged as excess interest and it was duly informed in writing to the plaintiff vide letter dated 29.09.2004 [ Exhibit-P10]. 21. Hence the said amount of Rs.3,11,000/- had been credited to the plaintiff account. On the other hand the plaintiff failed to establish such calculation of excess interest amount from the defendants side is incorrect. Hence the court finds that the arguments submitted on the side of defendants with respect to the interest calculation looks sound and correct. So the claim of plaintiff towards refund of excess interest charged by the defendants to the claim of Rs.16,29,637/- (after deducting credited interest amount of Rs.3,11,000/- is not acceptable. Hence, the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the defendants. 22. So the claim of plaintiff towards refund of excess interest charged by the defendants to the claim of Rs.16,29,637/- (after deducting credited interest amount of Rs.3,11,000/- is not acceptable. Hence, the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the defendants. 22. It is further argued as it is not correct that the defendants had agreed to grant the plaintiff the combined a letter of credit cum cash credit with limit of Rs.6 Crores . The defendants further submitted that they are not aware of the actual dealings as well as the agreed terms and nature of business between M/s.Siemens and the plaintiff and they are put to strict proof of the same, which they have failed to do so in the manner known to law. In fact the second defendant bank branch had made it clear at the time when the plaintiff made the application that since the matter was beyond his sanctioning powers the matter was to be decided and sanctioned by the Regional office. So it is submitted that the second defendant has not given any assurance or guarantee as regards the sanction or quantum of sanction could be given by them to the plaintiff. 23. The defendants side would further submit that the averments in para 4 of the Plaint that the plaintiff were not keen in utilizing the limits sanctioned to them as it was not sufficient for them are false. It is equally false and baseless to contend that the plaintiff was promised that the entire Rs.6 Crores would be disturbed within one month of utilizing the initial Rs.3 Crores and because of that only the plaintiff utilized the sanctioned facility on 15.04.2002 etc., there was no such promise was ever made by the defendants. The defendants would further submit that the plaintiff had executed documents and created charge with the Registrar of Companies for Rs.6 Crores on their own free will and volition and not as required by the defendants bank. The defendants have not admitted the alleged contentions set out by the plaintiff in para 6 of the plaint with respect to the import of phones / instruments and infact the plaintiff themselves failed to prove the same with oral or documentary evidence. 24. The defendants have not admitted the alleged contentions set out by the plaintiff in para 6 of the plaint with respect to the import of phones / instruments and infact the plaintiff themselves failed to prove the same with oral or documentary evidence. 24. The defendants submitted with emphasis that the margin for the combined letter of credit cum cash credit facility was stipulated at 35% a per the sanction for enhancement dated 26.07.2002. It is further argued that it is absolutely false and baseless to contend that the defendants unilaterally created another fixed deposit after the recurring deposit was closed rather than crediting cash credit account without any mandate. They further argued that such a vague allegation of plaintiff against the defendants bank cannot be sustainable as the bank never made any such voluntary inputs on the customer. Hence such an allegation is very much travel beyond the truth and the plaintiff has failed to prove to same with any documentary evidence. They submitted that such additional fixed deposit was opened by plaintiff at their instance to build up security so as to increase the limits from Rs.3 Crores to Rs.4.50 Crores. 25. The following points have been further argued by defendants that the plaintiff had even prior to sanction offered to provide deposits of Rs.10 Lakhs every month. But the defendants have not given any representation or assurance to enhance the limit to Rs.6 Crores. Therefore no fault could be pinned on the defendants for not having sanctioned the limit of Rs.6 Crores. It is further submitted by the defendants that being bankers and dealing with the monies of public at large cannot be expected to provide credit facilities as per the wishes and mere expectations of any constituent. Bring one of the leading banks in the country provide credit facilities only as per track record and satisfactory performance and financial parameters of the parties. So the defendants assessed the request of plaintiff and found after careful consideration on merits that the plaintiff is entitled only for the limit of Rs.4.50 Crores. The defendants being bankers are entitled to their credit assessment and it is settled law that such credit assessment cannot be called in question. So it is the discretion of the bankers to fix and revise the credit limits to their customers and such action cannot be called in question. The defendants being bankers are entitled to their credit assessment and it is settled law that such credit assessment cannot be called in question. So it is the discretion of the bankers to fix and revise the credit limits to their customers and such action cannot be called in question. All the above said line of contentions as also the arguments submitted in nexus thereof by the defendants are acceptable in all fairness. It is the absolute discretion of the bankers to fix and revise or enhance the cash credit limit based on the performance of the customers as they are dealing with the public monies. Such a valid point has been taken in to consideration by this Court. 26. The defendants would further submit that it is not correct on the part of plaintiff that they could not buy adequate stock from M/s.Siemens resulting in a drastic reduction in turn-over of their company. It is further brought to the knowledge of this court by the defendants that the actual sales of Siemens mobile phones was in fact dull right from the inception and was a flop actually , and so Siemens have for such reasons withdrawn from the Indian and world market. For this point of arguments the plaintiff side have not made valid reply and more so the plaintiff have not produced any documents or materials in support thereof to prove that the Siemens mobile phones are fast moving and highly saleable products both in the Indian market as well as World market. In the absence of any such proof from the plaintiff side this court is able to ascertain the fact that the Siemens mobile phones are not as fast moving products like that of other mobile phone . Hence the arguments put forth by the plaintiff that because of non-sanctioning the limit of Rs.6 Crores by the defendants they could not buy adequate stocks from Siemens to improve the sales and turn –over does not have any force or meaning in it . 27. It is further submitted by the defendants that the allegation of plaintiff regarding reduction in sales turn-over and loss due to non-availing the limit of Rs.6 Crores is totally unacceptable. The reduction in the business of plaintiff if at all was on account of lack of interest and demand and consequent purchase from and by the customers. 27. It is further submitted by the defendants that the allegation of plaintiff regarding reduction in sales turn-over and loss due to non-availing the limit of Rs.6 Crores is totally unacceptable. The reduction in the business of plaintiff if at all was on account of lack of interest and demand and consequent purchase from and by the customers. For all these alleged contention the defendants being the banker cannot be made responsible by any stretch of imagination. The facts and figures provided by the plaintiff in para 18 of the plaint are false and misleading. Moreover in the absence of any valid proof about the reduction in sale and the loss suffered due to defendants non-sanctioning of entire sanctioned limit of Rs.6 Crores , the arguments put forth rightly by the defendants side is considered as a valid and acceptable one. The defendants are no way responsible for the loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff more particularly to the tune of Rs.1,00,93,000/- or Rs.1,00,00,000/- as mentioned in para 18 of the plaint .Hence this issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff . 28. The defendants further place on record about the correspondence of plaintiff to defendant bank that the shipments has not been effected on many occasions and the letter of credit opened by the bank were asked to be cancelled by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sent a letter dated 20.06.2003 [Exhibit-D9] to the second defendant to cancel the letter of credit no.161114 dated 25.04.2003 for US Dollars 129986 as shipment has not been effected even after the expiry of and the bank was asked to cancel the amount earmark for purpose of payment of above letter of credit. The plaintiff also sent another letter dated 31.07.2003 [Exhibit-D10] addressed to the second defendant bank requesting to cancel the letter of credit as expired on 19.07.2003 to the extent of 3000Pieces equivalent to US dollars 164000 which was not shipped . Thus it is crystal clear that on many occasions the goods were not shipped by the supplier to the plaintiff and the letters of credit opened by the defendant bank were cancelled on that ground on the specific request of plaintiff. Thus it is crystal clear that on many occasions the goods were not shipped by the supplier to the plaintiff and the letters of credit opened by the defendant bank were cancelled on that ground on the specific request of plaintiff. So it is submitted that by the defendants that the case of plaintiff that it was doing good business in Siemens Mobile phones and because of the defendants bank had not sanctioned the higher limit of Rs.6 Crores the plaintiff suffered loss in business and suffered damages on account of business loss and on account of loss of credibility with Siemens does not hold good in the eye of law. The plaintiff themselves failed to prove or establish that they were doing good business in selling Siemens mobile phones and they suffered loss only due to the defendants non-sanctioning of higher limit of Rs.6 Crores . Such an arguments are travel beyond the truth in the absence of supportive and authentic evidence from the plaintiff both oral and documentary and hence the same is not acceptable .So this court has come to conclusion that the defendants are no way responsible for the plaintiff’s alleged business loss, sufferance of damages and the loss of their credibility. Hence this issue No.3 is answered in negative against the plaintiff and decides in favour of the defendants. 29. The defendants further submit that the logical argument of plaintiff that the Public Sector Bank is expected to come to the rescue of a customer when the potential for growth is excellent is nothing but misleading. More over it is a settled law that it is for the competent bank to decide the potential on basis of actual facts and records and already stated the banks which are dealing in public monies cannot be expected to lend monies merely on the expectations and wishes of a customer i.e., not based on sales record. Hence the claim made by the plaintiff in this suit under various heads are not at all sustainable. Since the first three issues have been decided against the plaintiff as they failed to prove and establish the respective reliefs, they are not entitled for the claim made in the sum of Rs.2,17,22,637/-. Hence, the issued No.4 is answered accordingly against the plaintiff. 30. Issue No.5: The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 31. Since the first three issues have been decided against the plaintiff as they failed to prove and establish the respective reliefs, they are not entitled for the claim made in the sum of Rs.2,17,22,637/-. Hence, the issued No.4 is answered accordingly against the plaintiff. 30. Issue No.5: The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 31. In the result the suit is dismissed with the Costs of the defendants.