- Case
- SHRIKANT G. MANTRI v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (Bombay High Court, 10-03-2025)
- Law
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Commercial Courts Act, Limitation Act.
Facts: The Plaintiff, a stockbroker, sought a summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to compel the Defendant, Punjab National Bank (PNB), to transfer 11,25,000 shares of ITC Ltd. pledged as security for an overdraft facility, along with accrued dividends and interest. The Plaintiff had availed overdraft facilities from Nedungadi Bank Limited, which later merged with PNB. Disputes arose regarding the shares after the Plaintiff made payments under a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, but the shares were not returned. The Defendant claimed the suit was barred by limitation and that the shares were pledged to secure all dues, not just the overdraft facility.Procedural Posture: This is an interim application filed by the Plaintiff in a commercial suit, seeking a summary judgment. The Defendant opposed the application, arguing that the suit could not be decided without oral evidence and that the Plaintiff had not diligently pursued prior proceedings.Issue: Is the Plaintiff entitled to a summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the CPC, considering the defenses raised by the Defendant, particularly the issue of limitation and whether the Plaintiff diligently pursued prior legal remedies?Holding: No, the Plaintiff is not entitled to a summary judgment. The Interim Application is dismissed.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff's claim relied on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, arguing that time spent pursuing remedies before the National Consumer Commission and the Supreme Court should be excluded when calculating the limitation period. However, the Court found that whether the Plaintiff prosecuted those proceedings with due diligence and in good faith was a question of fact requiring oral evidence. The Court cited Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v/s. Praveen Desai and Others, emphasizing that the Plaintiff must prove they instituted and prosecuted the earlier proceedings in good faith, which includes demonstrating due care and attention. Since this required oral evidence, a summary judgment was inappropriate. The Court also noted that the Defendant had raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction before the National Consumer Commission, further questioning the Plaintiff's due diligence. The court stated, "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in my view, the Plaintiff would have to prove by leading oral evidence that he was prosecuting the proceedings before the National Consumer Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court with due diligence and in good faith. In my view, until the aforesaid is proved by the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim as provided in Rule 3 of Order XIII-A."
