SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31518

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Pronounced on: 7th October, 2024 + I.A. 10671/2023 (under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC), I.A.

8068/2023 (under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC), I.A. 9173/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC) and I.A. 2858/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC) in CS(COMM) 128/2022 ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate and with Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Ms. Anushka Shah, Ms.

Manyaa Chandok, Mr Akshit Mago, Mr Sarthak Sareen, Dr.

Joginder Singh, Ms. Molly Agarwal, Mr. Harshal Kumar, Rajeshwar Singh, Advocates versus YES BANK LTD & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Mr. Nihaad Diwan, Ms.

Isha Malik and Mr. Jeezan Riyaz, Advocates for D-1 and D-5 Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Badoni, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Mr.

Ratnesh Sharma, Mr. GS Awana and Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Advocates for D-6 Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Advocate for D-7 Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEENI.A. 10671/2023, 8068/2023, 9173/2023 & 2858/2024 in CS(COMM) 128/2022 Page 1 of 269 Badoni, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Mr.

Ratnesh Sharma, Mr. GS Awana and Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Advocates for D-8 Mr. Madhur Dhingra, Advocate for D-9 (Through VC)

Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for applicant in I. A. 1378/2024 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Judgement Key Points

No, this case law does not address or permit the use of the word "fraud" (or any related term) in a consumer complaint. The judgment concerns a commercial suit under the CPC involving banking loans, OTR schemes, SARFAESI proceedings, and related applications (e.g., plaint amendment, rejection, and injunction recall). It focuses on contractual disputes, lender consortium actions, RBI guidelines, and jurisdictional bars under SARFAESI/RDB Act, with no reference to consumer forums, Consumer Protection Act, or pleadings in consumer complaints. Mentions of "fraud" appear only peripherally (e.g., RBI norms for forensic audits in stressed accounts (!) , or general pleading standards in unrelated contexts [p_718-724]), but none relate to consumer complaints.


J U D G M E N T

Contents FACTUAL HISTORY ...................................................................................................... 3 I.A. No. 10671/2023 (seeking amendment of the Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC) ......................................................................................................................... 21 SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................................................. 21 (On behalf of applicant/Plaintiff) .......................................................................................................... 21 (On behalf of the defendant No. 7/Punjab National Bank) .................................................................. 24 (On behalf of defendant No. 6/Bank of Maharashtra) ......................................................................... 25 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 29 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 86 I.A. No. 8068/2023 (seeking rejection of the original Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) ................................................................................................................... 87 SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................................................. 87 (On behalf of the applicant/defendant No.7/Punjab National Bank) ................................................... 87 (On behalf of the non-applicant/Plaintiff) ............................................................................................ 92 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 94 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEENI.A. 10671/2023, 8068/2023, 9173/2023 & 2858/2024 in CS(COMM) 128/2022 Page 2 of 269 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 202 I.A. 2858/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC by the defendant No. 6/Bank of Maharashtra for recall of order dated 3rd March, 2023)& I. A. 9173/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC by the defendant No. 7/Punjab National Bank for recall of order 3rd March, 2023). ........................................................................................... 204 SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................................................ 205 SCHEME OF THE ACT....................................................................................................... 211 Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (addition, striking out or substitution of a party) ................................... 212 Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC (Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside) .......... 226 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 234 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 268 FACTUAL HISTORY

1. The instant suit under which the captioned applications have been filed was instituted by the Plaintiff, i.e. M/s Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. which is engaged in the hospitality business and owns various Hotels in the Country. The defendant No. 1 Bank („Yes Bank‟ hereinafter) had advanced loan and overdraft facilities to the Plaintiff under the loan Agreement dated 11th July, 2015 for a sum of Rs. 55, 00, 00, 000/- (Rs. Fifty-Five Crores), Agreement dated 12th January, 2016 for Rs. 1, 25, 00, 00, 000/- (Rs. One Hundred and Twenty-Five Crores) and had also entered into a Master Facility Agreement dated 9th May, 2016 for issuance of an overdraft facility of Rs. 32, 00, 00, 000/- (Rs. Thirty-Two Crores) in favour of the Plaintiff.

2. In the year 2020, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top