The court held that a suit involving fixed deposits and allegations of fraud constitutes a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, and such a suit is maintainable despite fraud claims.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. This Interim Application has been filed by the Defendant-State Bank of India (the Defendant - bank) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) seeking rejection/return of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred under law and cannot be tried under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the “Commercial Courts Act”). The Plaintiff - Board has filed reply to the same.

2. Mr. Shetye, learned Counsel for the Applicant, would submit that the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff to recover an amount of Rs.36,00,00,000/- along with interest from the Defendant-bank which were placed as fixed deposits by the Plaintiff with the Defendant - bank. However, since as per the plaint, the Plaintiff has lodged a written police complaint dated 15th May 2019 with the Joint Police Commissioner, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, alleging that the Manager of the Defendant-bank, Mr. Nikhil Roy, has committed fraud, misappropriated funds and with his active involvement and connivance, an amount of Rs.36,00,00,000/- is alleged to have been withdrawn without the consent of the Plaintiff, pleading fraud and misappropriation, that, the transaction cannot be a commercial transaction since the subject matter of the suit goes on the footing of fraud and misappropriation.

3. Mr. Shetye would submit that the Plaintiff has filed the suit as a Commercial Summary Suit which is primarily governed by the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and disputes as mentioned in Section 2(1)(c)(i) to (xxii) are treated as commercial disputes and eligible to be tried as commercial suits under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, is not maintainable as the dispute which is subject matter of the present suit cannot be considered as a commercial dispute considering the mandate and provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.

4. Mr. Shetye would submit that the Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that there was a fraud and misappropriation of funds which were lying in the form of fixed deposits with the Defendant - bank. That, the cause of action to file the suit as per the plaint is on account of fraud, which has allegedly taken place and not as a business transaction.

5. Mr. Shetye would submit that the alleged fraud and misappropriation of funds, as mentioned in the plaint, does not fall under the definition of commercial disputes as per Section 2(1)(c)(i) to (xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, and therefore, the present suit and the cause of action therein do not qualify to be treated as commercial disputes and therefore the suit cannot proceed as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act.

6. Mr. Shetye relies upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of IHHR Hospitality (Andhra) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Seema Swami and Others and would submit that in the said case, it has been clearly held that if the nature of transaction and the recovery is sought on the averments of embezzled amounts, the same cannot be termed as business transaction or having arisen in the ordinary course of business and therefore the suit does not qualify as a commercial suit, as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. Learned Counsel, submits that, therefore, the plaint be rejected and returned as the same cannot be filed as a commercial summary suit.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, opposes Mr. Shetye's submissions. Mr. Naidu would submit that the Plaintiff is an authority of the Maharashtra State Government established under the special statute namely Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (the “Mathadi Act”) and is a statutory body for regulating the employment of unprotected manual workers such as Mathadi, Hamal etc. employed in certain employments, to make better provision for their terms and conditions of employment, to provide for their welfare and for health and safety measures and to facilitate the welfare o