Commercial Suit for recovery of fixed deposit from the Bank – Maintainability
On 16.2.2029, the plaintiff – Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board – had made fixed deposits of Rs.45 crores for two years in the Defendant State Bank of India. In May, 2019, the officers of the Board had visited the branch for verification and confirmation of FD. However, the Bank Manager had fled away on seeing the officials and was absconding for two years. At present, he is in jail. Police complaint was filed on 15.5.2019 about misappropriation of Rs.36 crores by the Bank Manager.
On failure of the Bank to pay the said amount, the Plaintiff –had filed the commercial summary suit against the Defendant State Bank of India for recovery of fixed deposits of Rs.36 crores with interest.
HELD that the Bank, in the ordinary course of banking business, had accepted the fixed deposits repayable on demand or maturity and issued receipts which are mercantile documents. The suit is filed for enforcement of said receipts inspite of demand and legal notice. Therefore, it is a commercial dispute covered by Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act.
The fact that there is embezzlement of funds would not change the character or nature of the dispute.
The relationship is that of the creditor and the debtor arising out of a transaction between a banker and customer for enforcement of fixed deposit receipts.
Judgment dated 10.6.2024 in Interim Application (L) No.11006 of 2023 of the State Bank of India in Commercial Summary Suit No.91 of 2022 in the matter between Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board Vs. State Bank of India
