ORDER : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Writ Court whereby it has directed the appellant to credit a sum of Rs.81,74,190/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 15.09.2008 till the amount is paid to the State Bank of India, Baddi and further to pay costs of Rs. 1 lac to the State Bank of India, the appellant-PNB has filed the instant appeal. 2. The parties shall be referred to as the 'writ petitioner' and the 'writ respondents'. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner-M/s Alliance Biotech, a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 – Rajat Pharmaceutical Chemicals Limited, under which respondent No. 3 had exclusive right to market the products manufactured by the petitioner. 4. In terms of this agreement, the petitioner was supplying goods to respondent No. 3 and irrevocable Letter of Credit was issued at the instance of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2-Punjab National Bank (for short 'PNB') in favour of the writ petitioner for an amount not exceeding to Rs. 82,30,000/-. 5. The letter of credit was initially valid till 12.09.2008 which date admittedly was extended to 15.09.2008. Respondent No. 1 i.e. State Bank of India (for short 'SBI'), which was the advising Bank informed the writ petitioner on 24.06.2008 that all bills drawn in conformity with the terms of letter of credit shall be honoured. 6. During the course of agreement, the writ petitioner supplied pharmaceutical goods from time to time and also received the payment for the same. The goods worth Rs. 81,74,190/- were dispatched by the petitioner and the relevant documents were lodged with the advising bank i.e. respondent No. 1 -SBI on 13.09.2008 as is evident from Annexure P-5 appended with the writ petition. The copy of the same was also addressed to respondent No. 2-PNB. 7. The writ petitioner lodged its claim with respondent No.1-SBI, who negotiated the bills and credited an amount of Rs.79,90,383/- after deducting interest and negotiation commission to the account of the petitioner. 8. The copy of the same was also addressed to respondent No. 2-PNB. 7. The writ petitioner lodged its claim with respondent No.1-SBI, who negotiated the bills and credited an amount of Rs.79,90,383/- after deducting interest and negotiation commission to the account of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, writ respondent No. 2-PNB vide its letter dated 27.08.2008 (which the PNB alleges was issued on 27.09.2008 but wrongly shown to be 27.08.2008) sent to the SBI expressed its inability to negotiate the documents in view of the discrepancies it observed and the same are enumerated below:- “We are in receipt of documents under our L/C No. 025608 while scrutinizing the documents, we observed the following discrepancies: 1. Photocopy of certificate of Analises submitted of original. 2. MRT is not approved by IBA 3. Delivery challan not accepted by opener. In view of the above, we are unable to negotiate the documents. You are requested to take up the matter with the beneficiary to remove the discrepancies. Meanwhile, we are holding the said documents at your risk and responsibility and treating the documents on collection basis.” 9. Writ respondent No. 3-Rajat Pharmaceuticals Chemicals Ltd., which received the goods, sent a letter on 11.10.2008 to the PNB asking it to accept the letter of credit as it is i.e. with all discrepancies, however, the PNB did not accede to the request and on 15.10.2008 wrote a letter to the SBI that it would only make payment if funds are available in the account of respondent No. 3. 10. The SBI, in turn, sent a letter dated 21.10.2008 to the petitioner whereby it was informed that even though it had discounted the documents on 18.09.2008 but since the PNB had not accepted these documents, they were debiting the amount to the account of the petitioner. 11. This constrained the writ petitioner to send a legal notice to the respondents. Thereafter, certain negotiations also took place between the parties but the same did not yield any result, constraining the petitioner to file a writ petition being CWP No. 3007 of 2009, for grant of the following reliefs :- i. Respondent No. 1 and 2 may be directed to enforce and honour the irrevocable Letter of Credit and accordingly make the payment to the tune of Rs. 81,74,130/- to the petitioner. ii. 81,74,130/- to the petitioner. ii. That the respondents may be directed to pay the damages to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. Ten lacs. iii. That the petitioner may be held entitled to interest @ 18% per annum from 13.09.2008 up to the date of payment. iv. That the respondents may be directed to refund the amount of interest charged as per Annexure P-5 for a period of 90 days whereas the payment as per Letter of Credit remained with the petitioner only from 13.09.2008 to 21.10.2008 alongwith commission charged. 12. Respondent No. 1- SBI filed its reply wherein it was stated that it was always ready and willing to honour the letter of credit but since the principal bank i.e. PNB, had expressed its inability to honour the letter of credit, as according to it, it had no option but to go by the directions of the PNB. The SBI had clearly stated that the documents in question were lodged with it on 13.09.2008 i.e. before the expiry of letter of credit and that the PNB had ante dated its letter and showed that it was written on 27.08.2008. 13. According to the SBI, the letter was received by its branch at Baddi on 11.10.2008. Thereafter, on 21.10.2008, the PNB withdrew from the commitment to the letter of credit and directed that the documents be “sent for correction”. 14. It is the specific stand of the SBI that it is the PNB, which is at fault and in case the PNB is directed to reimburse the SBI, it will honour the letter of credit. The SBI has, in fact, stated that the objections as raised by the writ petitioner were not proper and the rejection otherwise was after the prescribed period, that too, by assigning new reasons and taking up new grounds. 15. The PNB filed its reply wherein it was stated that the letter of credit was presented to it after the expiry of the date and, therefore, it had no obligation much less responsibility to pay the amount. According to it, many discrepancies were there in the documents sent by the petitioner and various communications were issued in this regard. However, the main ground as canvassed before the learned writ Court was also that the letter of credit has been presented after the expiry date for which the PNB was not responsible. According to it, many discrepancies were there in the documents sent by the petitioner and various communications were issued in this regard. However, the main ground as canvassed before the learned writ Court was also that the letter of credit has been presented after the expiry date for which the PNB was not responsible. As regards the ante dating letter dated 27.08.2008, it was contended that the same was a mistake and ought to be read as 27.09.2008. 16. In addition to the aforesaid, another objection taken in the reply was that as per the letter of credit, goods had to be sent by air and this condition was also breached by the parties. 17. Lastly, the PNB contended that the documents which were received by the SBI on 13.09.2008 were received in its Branch on 20.09.2008 that after the date of expiry which was 15.09.2008. 18. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition as aforesaid, constraining respondent No. 2-PNB to file the instant appeal. 19. The first contention raised by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Rohit, learned Advocate, is regarding the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that obligations arising out of contractual cannot be enforced or determined by the learned Writ Court. However, we find no merit in the said contention. 20. In coming to such conclusion, we need not to multiply authorities and it would be suffice if we refer to three fairly recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. In Surya Constructions vs. State of U. P. (2019) 16 SCC 794 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the State behaves arbitrarily even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited vs. State of Kerala and others (2020) 16 SCC 279, held that even though the agreement that was entered between the appellant and KSEB, was undoubtedly a matter in the contractual arena, however, it was further held that it was now a settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not excluded in the matters pertaining to contract. The State and its agencies are duty bound to act in a manner, which is fair and transparent. The State and its agencies are duty bound to act in a manner, which is fair and transparent. It is further held that the State and its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily in dealings with private parties. 23. Lastly, we may refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. And another vs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and another AIR 2021 SC 2411 , wherein it was held that it is now settled by plethora of decisions of this Court that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of contract. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 being discretionary, the High Court usually refrain from entertaining writ petition which involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact which may require analysis of evidence of witnesses. Lastly, it was held that even monetary relief can also be granted to the petitioner. 24. Thus, we have no difficulty in concluding that the writ petition as filed by the writ petitioner was maintainable before the learned Writ Court. 25. It is then contended that the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court are not sustainable as it has not referred to any of annexures appended with the writ petition by either of the parties. Even this contention by itself, in absence of the appellant's inability to point out any perversity in the judgment holds no water. 26. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grounds as taken by the PNB for rejecting the claim of the petitioner have not at all been dealt with by the learned Writ Court. 27. We may, at this stage, remind ourselves that this Court is dealing with the intra-court appeal where the scope of interference is quite limited as it is only in the cases where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, the interference in an intra-court appeal be justified. There has to be competent illegality so as to warrant interference. 28. There has to be competent illegality so as to warrant interference. 28. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roma sonkar vs. Madhya Pradsh State Public Service Commission and another (2018) 17 SCC 106 , wherein while dealing with the scope of intra-court appeal, it was observed as under: “Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge.” 29. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that initially the PNB came up with three grounds as to why it did not accede to the letter of credit, however, later it added two more grounds, which obviously were not available to it in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., 1978 (1) SC 405 wherein it was held that When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 30. Now adverting to the initial ground of rejection, it would be noticed that the first ground of rejection as accorded by the PNB that the documents presented to the PNB by the SBI vide letter dated 13.09.2008 were received by the PNB after the expiry of the date of the letter of credit i.e. 20.09.2008, as against the expiry date which was 15.09.2008. 31. 31. Record reveals that after dispatch of goods on 12.08.2008 and 21.08.2008, the documents were presented to SBI, Baddi on 13.09.2008 and the expiry date of letter of credit was 15.09.2008. 32. It was not disputed before the learned Writ Court as well as before this Court that the issue in question is governed and is required to be determined by the provisions as contained in Uniform, Customs and Practice (UCP) 600, which read as under:- “UCP 600 – Article 6 “Availability, Expiry Date and Place for Presentation a. A credit must state the bank with which it is available or whether it is available with any bank. A credit available with a nominated bank is also available with the issuing bank. b. A credit must state whether it is available by sight payment, deferred payment, acceptance or negotiation. c. A credit must not be issued available by a draft drawn on the applicant. d. i. A credit must state an expiry date for presentation. An expiry date stated for honour or negotiation will be deemed to be an expiry date for presentation. ii. The place of the bank with which the credit is available is the place for presentation. The place for presentation under a credit available with any bank is that of any bank. A place for presentation other than that of the issuing bank is in addition to the place of the issuing bank. e. Except as provided in sub-article 29(a), a presentation by or on behalf of the beneficiary must be made on or before the expiry date. UCP 600 – Article 7 Issuing Bank Undertaking a. Provided that the stipulated documents are presented to the nominated bank or to the issuing bank and that they constitute a complying presentation, the issuing bank must honour if the credit is available by: xxx xxx xxx b. An issuing bank is irrevocably bound to honour as of the time it issues the credit. c. An issuing bank undertakes to reimburse a nominated bank that has honoured or negotiated a complying presentation and forwarded the documents to the issuing bank. Reimbursement for the amount of a complying presentation under a credit available by acceptance or deferred payment is due at maturity, whether or not the nominated bank prepaid or purchased before maturity. c. An issuing bank undertakes to reimburse a nominated bank that has honoured or negotiated a complying presentation and forwarded the documents to the issuing bank. Reimbursement for the amount of a complying presentation under a credit available by acceptance or deferred payment is due at maturity, whether or not the nominated bank prepaid or purchased before maturity. An issuing bank’s undertaking to reimburse a nominated bank is independent of the issuing bank’s undertaking to the beneficiary. xxx xxx xxxx UCP 600 – Article 14 xxx xxx xxx b. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank shall each have a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to determine if a presentation is complying. This period is not curtailed or otherwise affected by the occurrence on or after the date of presentation of any expiry date or last day for presentation. xxx xxx xxx xxx UCP 600 – Article 16 Discrepant Documents, Waiver and Notice a. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank determines that a presentation does not comply, it may refuse to honour or negotiate. b. When an issuing bank determines that a presentation does not comply, it may in its sole judgment approach the applicant for a waiver of the discrepancies. This does not, however, extend the period mentioned in sub-article 14(b). c. When a nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank decides to refuse to honour or negotiate, it must give a single notice to that effect to the presenter. The notice must state : i. that the bank is refusing to honour or negotiate ; and ii. each discrepancy in respect of which the bank refuses to honour or negotiate; and iii. (a) that the bank is holding the documents pending further instructions from the presenter; or b) that the issuing bank is holding the documents until it receives a waiver from the applicant and agrees to accept it, or receives further instructions from the presenter prior to agreeing to accept a waiver; or c) that the bank is returning the documents; or d) that the bank is acting in accordance with the instructions previously received from the presenter. d. The notice required in sub-article 16(c) must be given by telecommunication or, if that is not possible, by other expeditious means no later than the close of the fifth banking day following the day of presentation. e. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, or the issuing bank may, after providing notice required by sub-article 16(c) (iii) (a) or (b), return the documents to the presenter at any time. f. If an issuing bank or a confirming bank fails to act in accordance with the provisions of this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. g. When an issuing bank refuses to honour or a confirming bank refuses to honour or negotiate and has given notice to that effect in accordance with this article, it shall then be entitled to claim a refund with interest, of any reimbursement made. UCP 600 – Article 17 Original Documents and Copies a. At least one original of each document stipulated in the credit must be presented. b. A bank shall treat as an original any document bearing an apparently original signature, mark, stamp, or label of the issuer of the document, unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original. c. Unless a document indicates otherwise, a bank will also accept a document as original if it: i. appears to be written, typed, perforated or stamped by the document issuer’s hand; or ii. appears to be on the document issuer’s original stationery; or iii. states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document presented. d. If a credit requires presentation of copies of documents, presentation of either originals or copies is permitted. e. If a credit requires presentation of multiple documents by using terms such as “in duplicate”. “in two fold” or “in two copies”, this will be satisfied by the presentation of at least one original and the remaining number in copies, except when the document itself indicates otherwise. 33. In terms of Article 6 UCP 600(d):- i. A credit must state an expiry date for presentation. An expiry date stated for honour or negotiation will be deemed to be an expiry date for presentation; (ii) the place with which the credit is available is the place for presentation. 33. In terms of Article 6 UCP 600(d):- i. A credit must state an expiry date for presentation. An expiry date stated for honour or negotiation will be deemed to be an expiry date for presentation; (ii) the place with which the credit is available is the place for presentation. The place for presentation under a credit available with any bank is that of any bank and the place for presentation other than that of the issuing bank is in addition to the place of the issuing bank. 34. As per Article 2 – Presentation means delivery of documents under credit to the issuing bank or nominated bank and nominated bank means the bank with which the credit is available or any bank in case of a credit available with any bank. In case of credit available with any bank, therefore, the documents were required to be presented and in fact were presented to the nominated bank i.e. SBI on 13.09.2008 i.e. much before the expiry date for honour, which was fixed for 15.09.2008. 35. As observed above, there is no dispute regarding the applicability of UCP 600 as quoted above. Under the UCP 600 there is a bank known as issuing bank, which issues the letter of credit. Then there is another bank known as nominated bank with which credit is available. In the instant case, the PNB was the issuing bank and the SBI was the nominated bank. As per the UCP 600, the date of expiry is required to be given on all the documents which are required to be presented before the date of expiry. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the expiry date was specified i.e. 15.09.2008. The place where the credit is available is the place for presentation unless specified otherwise. 36. It is evidently clear from the UCP 600 that the place where the credit is available with any bank is that of any bank. As regards the instant case, a credit was also available with the SBI and, therefore, presentation before the expiry date could have been made to the SBI. As a matter of fact, the original letter of credit itself indicates that the credit was available for negotiation with any bank. As regards the instant case, a credit was also available with the SBI and, therefore, presentation before the expiry date could have been made to the SBI. As a matter of fact, the original letter of credit itself indicates that the credit was available for negotiation with any bank. Therefore, the objections of the PNB that the SBI could not have negotiated the letter of credit is not sustainable, as has rightly been concluded by the learned Writ Court. 37. The issuing bank-PNB is irrevocably bound to honour the letter of credit. Article 14 of the UCP 600 makes it mandatory that nominating bank, confirming bank or the issuing bank shall each have maximum five banking days following the day of presentation to determine if the presentation complies with the terms and conditions. As regards the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the documents were submitted to the nominated bank-SBI on 13.09.2008. 38. On 18.09.2008, the SBI sent a communication to the PNB that it had negotiated the bill of exchange and claimed an amount of Rs. 81,74,190/-. The PNB vide its letter purported to be written on 27.08.2008 refused to honour the claim on the grounds that (i) certificate of analysis was not in original; (ii) that the motor transport operator was not approved by the Indian Banks Association and; (iii) the delivery of challan was not accepted by the opener. 39. All these objections were not found to be correct by the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to differ with such findings as it stand proved on record that the certificate of analysis had been submitted in original to the SBI. That apart, the motor transport operator was duly approved by the Indian Bank Association and as regards the opener of the letter of credit the same was waived off alongwith all objections. 40. As regards the further contention of the appellant that the goods were required to be sent by air as per the letter of credit. We again do not find any substance in the said contention because the original letter of credit as available on the writ record as Annexure P-2 (Page-19) was thereafter modified vide letter dated 26.04.2008 (Annexure P-4) and the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “1. We again do not find any substance in the said contention because the original letter of credit as available on the writ record as Annexure P-2 (Page-19) was thereafter modified vide letter dated 26.04.2008 (Annexure P-4) and the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “1. On Page No. 3 under Special instructions-clause No. 7 to be read as Documents to be presented within 30 days after the date of transport documents, but within the validity of this credit i.e. 15.09.2008. 2. Date of expiry to be read as 15.09.2008. 3. Shipment to be read as dispatch from BADDI to Mumbai for transportation to Mumbai.” 41. All these facts have been taken note of by the learned Writ Court when it proceeded to hold that the letter of credit provided that it should have been accompanied by the Airport bills but the PNB in its letter dated 26.08.2008 had clarified that the date of expiry would be read as 15.09.2008 and the shipping was to be read as dispatch from BADDI to Mumbai for transportation to Mumbai, meaning thereby, the goods could have been transported by road. Admittedly, Baddi does not have an airport and, therefore, the goods could not have been transported by air as it was humanly not possible. 42. It is thereafter vehemently argued by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate that the petition filed by the petitioner was required to be dismissed at threshold as respondent Nos. 1 and 3 did not comply with the Article 17 of the UCP 600. We further find no merit in this contention. Article 17 UCP 600 provides (a) at least one original of each document stipulated in credit must be presented; (b) how to treat the document as original. 43. As per the letter dated 27.08.2009, it is claimed that photocopy of certificate of analysis was only submitted, whereas the letter dated 04.11.2008 (Page 116) clarifies that the certificate in original had been given. That apart the SBI clearly acknowledges that the certificate in original had been given. Moreover, the letter dated 27.08.2009 (the date of which is disputed) was written and sent after five banking days, therefore, writ respondent No. 2 is otherwise estopped from claiming that the documents were not complied as per Article 14 and 16 of UCP 600. That apart the SBI clearly acknowledges that the certificate in original had been given. Moreover, the letter dated 27.08.2009 (the date of which is disputed) was written and sent after five banking days, therefore, writ respondent No. 2 is otherwise estopped from claiming that the documents were not complied as per Article 14 and 16 of UCP 600. The relevant portion of Articles 14 and 16 read as under:- “Article 14(b)-An....issuing bank shall have maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to determine if a presentation is complying. Article 16(a) When...issuing bank determines that the presentation does not comply, it may refuse to honour. (c) When....issuing bank decides to refuse to honour, it must give a single notice to the presenter. (d) the notice must be given by telecommunication or by other expeditious means not later than the close of the fifth banking day following the day of presentation. (f) If..... the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with the provisions of this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that documents did not constitute complying presentation.” 44. Records reveal the receipt of documents on 20.09.2008 (Page 74). Since 20.09.2008 was Saturday, a non-banking day, therefore, the five banking days starts from 22.09.2008 and the same ends on 26.09.2008, which was Friday. Whereas notice in the instant case was prepared after the close of fifth banking day i.e. on 27.09.2008 (Saturday) and was couriered only on 29.09.2008. Thus, it stands proved that the notice was not given within the stipulated time, therefore, in terms of Clause (f), the PNB is precluded from claiming that documents did not constitute complying presentation. 45. As observed above, in addition to the aforesaid grounds, the PNB in its reply took three additional grounds, which otherwise are not available to it but have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to go into the correctness of such findings as these additional grounds, as observed above, would not available to the PNB in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh's case (supra). 46. It is lastly contended by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate that the costs of Rs. One Lac, as imposed upon the petitioner be reduced, if not completely waived off. 47. 46. It is lastly contended by Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate that the costs of Rs. One Lac, as imposed upon the petitioner be reduced, if not completely waived off. 47. It is relevant to first ascertain as to why the learned Writ Court imposed costs of Rs. One Lac and the same is contained in operative portion of the judgment, which reads as under :- …...In view of the highly unethical stand of the PNB and in view of the fact that it has taken totally false pleas and also in view of the fact that it appears to have ante dated certain documents, I fee it is a fit case where the Punjab National Bank should be burdened with exemplary costs. Accordingly the Punjab National Bank is directed to pay costs of RS. 1 lac to the petitioner. The Punjab National Bank shall pay the entire amount alongwith costs, as indicated hereinabove, to the State Bank of India and the petitioner on or before 15th June, 2011. 48. We have examined the aforesaid reasoning and find that the stand of the PNB indeed is not tenable and may also verge around being cantankerous but there is no substantive proof to establish that the documents had been ante dated. Nonetheless, the PNB could have conveniently avoided the litigation by coming up with more fair and equitable stand. 49. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to reduce the cost from Rs. 1,00,000/-to Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be paid by the PNB, as already directed, to the SBI on or before 15.11.2022. 50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, with respect to costs, the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court shall stand modified as above. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.