SC in the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Versus The Central Bank of India

Case Covered:

Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd.

Versus

The Central Bank of India

Facts of the case:

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2.1.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (for short, “the High Court”) in R.S.A. No. 391/2016, whereby the High Court affirmed the decision of the Court of  Civil  Judge–05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dated 6.1.2016 in C.S. No. 950/2014 allowing the application filed by the respondents/ defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908  (for short, “the CPC”), instituted by the appellant/plaintiff. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari  Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 23.7.2016 in R.C.A. No. 61794/2016 had also affirmed the order of rejecting the plaint. The appellant had filed the stated suit on  23.2.2005  for a decree for a rendition of true and correct accounts in respect of the interest/commission charged and deducted by the respondent ­Bank relating to the current account No. CCM 20225 of the appellant for the period between 1.4.1997 and 31.12.2000 and also for recovery of the excess amount charged by the respondent ­Bank consequent to the rendition of accounts with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deduction including interest pendente lite realization of the amount and future interest.

Observations of the court:

Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the decisions of the Trial Court, the first appellate  Court and the High Court in the fact situation of the present case, rejecting the plaint in question under  Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC,  cannot be sustained. As a result, the same is quashed and set aside.

In view of the above, this appeal succeeds and the plaint stands restored to the file of the trial Court to its original number for being proceeded in accordance with the law. All contentions available to both parties are kept open including the issue of limitation to be decided along with other issues on the basis of plea taken in the written statement and the evidence produced by the parties in that behalf uninfluenced by the observations made in the present judgment on factual matters. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Judgement of the court:

We have considered the factual position in the present case, which is similar to the facts in the companion appeal.  Therefore, for the reasons stated in the judgment in companion appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 30209/2017, even this appeal should succeed on the same terms. Accordingly, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, the first appellate Court and the High Court in the second appeal are set aside and the plaint is restored to the file of the trial Court to be disposed of on the same terms as indicated in the companion appeal (arising from SLP(C) No. 30209/2017). There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Read & download full decision in pdf: