IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of what constitutes a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and how the specific nature of the transaction influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Issues were framed vide Order dated 05.03.2020.

2. Issue Nos. 1 and 2, which were framed, are taken as the preliminary issues. These are as under:

"(i) Whether the alleged dispute between the parties does not fall within the ambit of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and thus the suit cannot be pursued as a commercial suit? OPD-1 to 7.

(ii) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of defendant Nos. 1 to 6? OPD-1 to 6."

3. Submissions Heard on the two Preliminary issues.

Issue No. 2 - Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of defendant Nos. 1 to 6? OPD-1 to 6.

4. A plea has been taken on behalf of the defendants that the defendant Nos. 2 to 6, are the Chairperson and the Executive Directors of defendant No. 1, who are neither necessary nor a proper party to the present suit.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff concedes to deletion of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and amend the title of the defendant No. 1, to be sued through the Chairperson.

6. In view of the submission made, the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are hereby deleted and the title of the defendant No. 1 be corrected, to be sued through the Chairman of the Bank.

7. Amended memo of parties be accordingly filed.

8. The issue is decided accordingly.

Issue No. 1- Whether the alleged dispute between the parties does not fall within the ambit of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and thus the suit cannot be pursued as a commercial suit?

9. Learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff has submitted that initially, the suit was filed as a Civil Suit but on account of the objection taken by the Registry, it has been registered as a Commercial Suit. It is further submitted that it is a bank transaction, which was undertaken by the plaintiff and he had transferred Rs. 2.10 Crores, through RTGS to defendant No. 1 and subsequently, when it went to redeem the FDR, the same was denied by the defendant No.7.

10. The plaintiff in its suit for recovery of Rs.3,06,34,100/- along with pendent lite and future interest, has specifically averred that on the representation of the Chief Manager of defendant No.7 through the plaintiff's Company representative solicited the plaintiff Company to make investments with defendant No.7 Branch of defendant No.1, Punjab & Sindh Bank, by way of FDRs/DRs for a period of one year with good return on the deposits with interest @ 9.5% per annum. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff Company transferred a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- through RTGS on 11.12.2013, in the account details, as provided by defendant No.7 branch which was duly acknowledged by it and it confirmed opening of FDRs.

11. Thereafter, FDR/SDR was issued against the new account opened with defendant No.7 branch of the defendant No.1 bank. On the request of the plaintiff, defendant No.7 issued a Interest Certificate dated 14.03.2014 with interest calculated @ 9.20%. On the pointing out of the plaintiff's representative, the defendant No.7 agreed to rectify the interest rate for the period 12.12.2013 to 14.03.2014 @ 9.50% as was agreed and even issued a fresh FDR for the sum of Rs.2,14,99,100/-. The fresh FDR bearing No.884267 dated 14.03.2014 was accordingly issued for the said amount.

12. Subsequently, when the plaintiff sought encashment of the said FDR, it was informed that the plaintiff Company had raised a loan of Rs.1,93,49,000/- on 18.03.2014 against the security of the said FDR which stands adjusted on 11.07.2014 by defendant No.7. It is claimed that this alleged settlement was done without intimation or consent of the plaintiff. It is further asserted that the plaintiff never opened any Demand Loan Account or took an overdraft facility from defendant No.7. Therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,06,34,100/- along with pendent lite and future interest, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

13. A preliminary objection has been taken on beha