Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Suman Kumar on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 1504/2023
CANARA BANK (Erstwhile SYNDICATE BANK)
A BODY CORPORATE, INCORPORATED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT,
1970)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 112 J.C. ROAD, TOWN HALL JUNCTION,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA AND AMONGST
OTHER PLACES, A BRANCH OFFICE AT
FOUNTAION AREA BRANCH, CHANDNI CHOWK
NEW DELHI
THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SH. KRISHAN KANT SINGH
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MR. SUMAN KUMAR
SHOP AT :-
SHOP NO. 728, BASEMENT,
OLD LAJPAT RAI MARKET,
CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI-110006
ALSO AT:
MIG FLAT NO. F-1, GROUND FLOOR
HANS APARTMENT, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032 DEFENDANT
Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Digitally signed Page no. 1 of 20
CS Comm 1504/2023 AJAY by AJAY
PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14
15:29:34 +0530
Date of Institution : 18.11.2023
Date of Arguments : 06.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 14.03.2026
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT FOR RECOVERY FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,30,789.19/- ALONG WITH PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 18% P.A. AND DAMAGES.
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.10,30,789.19/-
has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. It is inter-alia stated in the plaint that plaintiff bank is a corporate, carrying on banking business and perpetual succession constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for securing overdraft limit on 22.09.2020 for business purpose. The plaintiff after satisfying itself and believing the assurance of defendant secured overdraft limit and sanctioned the same on 24.09.2020 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. The same was disbursed in loan/overdraft account no. 90031400001710. The defendant executed Cash Credit Agreement, Agreement cum Deed Hypothecation, Take Deliver Letter to DPN, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Proprietorship and request for overdraft facility dated 24.09.2020 in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant also agreed to abide by the changes made by the Reserve Bank of India, from Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 2 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:29:41 +0530 time to time with regard to interest. The defendant further agreed to pay 2% penal interest in case he failed to adhere to the financial discipline or contravened the terms and conditions of the documents executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.
3. It is further stated that defendant also availed credit card facility from the plaintiff which was renewed by plaintiff on 12.06.2021. The same was used by defendant and his credit card account bearing no. 125002539181 was opened after merger of banks.
4. It is further stated that thereafter defendant again approached and requested plaintiff for renewal of secured overdraft limit for business purpose which was renewed in 2022. The plaintiff after satisfying itself and believing the assurance of defendant, renewed overdraft loan/credit facility on 20.01.2022 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. The same was disbursed in loan/overdraft account no. 90031400001710. The defendant executed letter of renewal and letter of undertaking dated 20.01.2022 in favour of plaintiff. In addition to this, the defendant also agreed to abide by the changes made by the Reserve Bank of India, from time to time with regard to interest. The defendant further agreed to pay 2% penal interest in case he failed to adhere to the financial discipline or contravened the terms and conditions of the documents executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.
5. It is further stated that defendant has failed to Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 3 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:29:47 +0530 honor the commitments towards the plaintiff and failed to adhere the financial discipline despite sending various reminders to him to clear the outstanding amount. However, defendant failed to do so. Hence the said account, being inoperative, was declared N.P.A on 21.08.2022.
6. It is further stated that plaintiff received last payment for loan facility enjoyed by the defendant on 29.08.2022 and thereafter no payment was ever made by the defendant.
7. It is further stated that after giving credit/adjustment of part payments made by the defendant from time to time, the books of account maintained by plaintiff in its ordinary course and usual course of business, defendant is liable to pay Rs.10,30,789.19/- (i.e. Rs.8,92,146.19 of OD account and Rs.1,38,624.90 of credit card account including the principal amount and interest upto September 2023).
8. It is further stated that plaintiff sent legal notice dated 04.01.2023 for recovery of Rs.9,20,549.74/- to the defendant through its counsel to pay the outstanding amount but to no avail. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application on 08.05.2023 before The Central District State Legal Services Authority, Central District, Tis Hazari for pre-litigation mediation. The defendant appeared in pre-litigation mediation but refused to participate in mediation process. A non-starter report Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 4 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:29:53 +0530 dated 07.08.2023 was issued.
9. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.10,30,789.19 with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% with monthly rests till its realization.
10. Summons for settlement of issues were served upon the defendant. Defendant filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that present suit filed by the plaintiff is entirely based upon incorrect and untrue facts. The present suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that plaintiff caused unnecessary and unwarranted mental harassment by making repeated telephonic calls to the defendant and inducted the plaintiff to avail its loan facility as well as credit card facility.
11. It is further stated in preliminary objections that plaintiff did not disclose the true and accurate terms and conditions of loan facilities including credit card facilities to defendant and pressurized him to execute the loan agreement by adopting deceptive method against ethics of banking rules and regulations. The consent of defendant was obtained by using deceptive means by plaintiff. It is thus stated that present suit is not maintainable as the impugned loan agreement is itself unenforceable as a valid contract.
12. It is further stated that plaintiff must declare the loan account NPA (Non-Performing Assets) after lapse of 90 days from the date when the amount to be Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 5 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2026.03.14 15:29:59 +0530 recovered was due. As per the guidelines of RBI in respect of NPA, the plaintiff's bank ought to have issued a demand notice before declaring the loan as NPA but the plaintiff failed to do so. The plaintiff declared the same within 90 days, even though the defendant repaid his first installment. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed because the plaintiff bank has made a default by not complying with the pre-requisite condition to declare the account as NPA.
13. It is further stated in the preliminary objections that Hon'ble Supreme Court in a leading matter observed "borrowers have the right to be heard before banks classify their accounts as fraud and that principles of natural justice must be followed". Hence, a hearing must be granted under the Master Directions on Fraud.
14. It is further stated that plaintiff has charged an exorbitant interest rate against the loan amount borrowed by defendant. Hence, the recovery of interest rate is against the norms of Central Bank of Country (RBI). The plaintiff has also filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,87,194/- against the defendant on the basis of false, manipulated, fabricate documents and incorrect information. The said case is pending before the court of learned Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Court.
15. In reply on merits, defendant approaching the plaintiff bank for loan and executing loan documents is denied. It is reiterated that plaintiff had caused Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Digitally signed Page no. 6 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:06 +0530 unnecessary and unwarranted mental harassment by making repeated telephone calls. It is further stated that consent of defendant was obtained by plaintiff by adopting deceptive and unfair methods inconsistent with banking rules and regulations.
16. It is denied that defendant approached the plaintiff for renewal of secured overdraft limit and executed documents for the same. It is however stated that defendant continued his overdraft facilities with the plaintiff on the basis of untrue and wrong information provided by plaintiff in respect of overdraft loan facilities. The defendant agreed to discharge his obligation because of the non-disclosure of correct and true information regarding the loan facilities by plaintiff.
17. It is further stated that due to adverse effect of Covid-19 pandemic, financial condition of defendant worsened. It is further stated that plaintiff made default by not complying with the RBI guidelines while declaring the account of defendant as NPA. No opportunity was given to defendant to explain his version in respect of non-payment of loan by him. It is admitted by defendant that he had made some part payments to plaintiff. It is however stated that he could not make further payment due to adverse impact of Covid-19 pandemic.
18. It is further stated that by sending legal notice to defendant, plaintiff just tried to cover up their default in Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 7 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:12 +0530 respect of their liability to inform the defendant prior to declaring the loan account as NPA. Dismissal of suit is prayed.
19. No replication was filed.
20. Vide order dated 29.08.2024, following issues were framed :-
1) Whether plaintiff induced, pressurized and deceived the defendant to enter into the loan agreement? OPD.
2) Whether the plaintiff has not followed the RBI guidelines prior to declaring the loan account of the defendant as NPA, if so, its effect? OPD.
3) Whether plaintiff has charged exorbitant rate of interest against the loan amount borrowed by the defendant? OPD.
4) Whether suit is not maintainable on account of filing of another suit before the court of learned Civil Judge as mentioned in para no.6 of the preliminary objections? OPD.
5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery from the defendant, if so, to what amount? OPP.
6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to payment of interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
7) Relief.
21. PW1 Sh. T.L. Soni, Branch Manager of the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and proved all relevant Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 8 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:18 +0530 documents mentioned in the affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/21.
22. Defence witness DW-1 is Sh. Suman Kumar, who is defendant in the present case. He has not proved any document in his evidence.
23. Learned counsels for parties argued the matter in detail. Learned counsel for defendant has also filed his written arguments.
24. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has duly proved its case through the testimony and documents proved on record.
25. Learned counsel for defendant argued that the suit filed by plaintiff is based upon false, fabricated, incorrect and twisted facts and circumstances. The loan documents have been manipulated by the plaintiff. It is further argued that plaintiff bank did not disclose the true and correct terms and conditions of the loan facilities including credit card facilities. The plaintiff did not comply with the RBI guidelines while declaring the account of defendant as NPA. Learned counsel for defendant has relied upon the judgment in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022), where it was held "borrowers have the right to be heard before banks classify their accounts as fraud and that principles of natural justice must be followed". It is further argued that plaintiff charged an exorbitant interest rate from the Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 9 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:24 +0530 defendant which is not reasonable.
26. Arguments considered. Record perused.
27. Issue wise findings of the court are as under :-
Issue no. 1 :- Whether plaintiff induced, pressurized and deceived the defendant to enter into the loan agreement? OPD.
28. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
Consent, free consent, coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation are defined under section 13 to 18 respectively of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, which are as follows :-
13. "Consent" defined Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
14. "Free consent" defined Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by-
(1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or (2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or (4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of Digitally signed Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 10 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:29 +0530 sections 20, 21 and 22.
Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
15. "Coercion"' defined "Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.
16."Undue influence" defined (1) A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 11 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:35 +0530 person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another--
(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or
(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
17. "Fraud" defined "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract :--
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 12 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:41 +0530 it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
Explanation.--Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
18. "Misrepresentation" defined "Misrepresentation" means and includes--
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under him; by misleading another to his Digitally signed Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar by AJAY Page no. 13 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2026.03.14 15:30:47 +0530 prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
(3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
29. It is stated in the written statement that plaintiff bank caused unnecessary and unwarranted mental harassment to the defendant by way of making repeated telephonic calls to him to induce the defendant to avail its loan facility as well as credit card facility.
30. This court is of the humble opinion that plaintiff is a commercial bank. Plaintiff may make the calls for providing its services to the customers or prospective customers. Whether to continue with the call or to avail any of the service of the plaintiff is for the prospective customer. There is no detail when the telephone calls referred to in the written statement were made by any employee or AR of the bank. There are further no details what conversation took place in any such calls. For the sake of arguments, even if it is presumed that plaintiff bank made telephonic calls to the defendant to avail its loan facility and/or credit card facility and defendant availed the said facilities induced by such calls. Such inducement cannot be said to illegal and was only part and parcel of the business of plaintiff. There Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 14 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:53 +0530 was no compulsion with the defendant to avail the services advertised by the plaintiff bank telephonically, through its representative or otherwise.
31. It is further stated in written statement that at the time of entering into loan agreement, plaintiff bank did not disclose true and accurate terms and conditions of loan facilities and credit card facilities to the defendant and pressurized the defendant to execute loan agreement by adopting deceptive methods against ethics of bank rules and regulations.
32. No rule or regulation which was violated by the plaintiff is mentioned in the written statement or evidence of DW-1. Defendant admitted in his cross- examination "It is correct that I have availed OD limit facility and credit card facility. It is also correct that I have to pay my outstanding dues to the bank". Defendant signed all the necessary documents stipulating terms and conditions of OD for the year 2022. Defendant availed OD facility of the plaintiff bank for two years. Defendant also availed credit card facility from the plaintiff bank after executing necessary documents. Credit card facility was renewed on 12.06.2021. OD facility was also renewed on 20.01.2022. Defendant again signed similar fresh documents as were signed by him while initially availing the facilities originally.
33. In the facts and circumstances, it can be safely said that allegations of pressure, misrepresentation or Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 15 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:30:59 +0530 deception are an afterthought, raised by the defendant to defeat claim of the plaintiff bank. No act or conduct of plaintiff is pleaded or proved, which may cover itself under the definition of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation. By signing loan documents, defendant has given its consent for contractual terms and conditions for availing OD and credit card facility.
34. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.2 :- Whether the plaintiff has not followed the RBI guidelines prior to declaring the loan account of the defendant as NPA, if so, its effect? OPD.
35. Onus to prove this issue was again upon the defendant. Defendant has not denied availing of OD and credit card facility from plaintiff. RBI guidelines for declaring the loan account of defendant as NPA, have not been placed on record by either party. It is not denied that defendant made default in payment of loan. It is not denied that plaintiff served legal notice for recovery of money upon the defendant on 04.01.2023. Defendant neither replied the notice nor came forward to pay outstanding dues of the plaintiff. Prior to institution of suit, plaintiff has exhausted remedy of pre-institution mediation. It is not stated by the defendant that he made any offer for repayment of loan after issuance of legal notice or during pre-institution mediation. Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 16 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:31:05 +0530
36. After availing the facilities of OD/loan/credit card facility, defendant cannot wriggle out its liability to repay the loan. Even if it is presumed that plaintiff has violated some guidelines of RBI while declaring the loan account of defendant as NPA, this court is of the opinion that same cannot adversely effect case of plaintiff nor it can be said that it has adversely affected the defendant. Plaintiff is a nationalized bank. RBI guidelines for declaring the loan account as NPA may be made for financial regulation and preparation of balance sheets of plaintiff, however defendant cannot take shelter of the same for non-payment of loan. The facts and circumstances of the case State Bank of India & Ors. Vs Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. (supra), relied upon by defendant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as it was held in that case that borrowers have right to be heard before banks classify their accounts as fraud.
37. In the present case account was not classified as fraud but was declared as NPA.
38. Even prior to the institution of suit plaintiff has given ample opportunity to defendant to approach plaintiff bank for payment/settlement by sending legal notice and by calling him in pre-institution mediation.
39. This issue is also decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 17 of 20 Digitally signed CS Comm 1504/2023 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:31:11 +0530 Issue no.3:- Whether plaintiff has charged exorbitant rate of interest against the loan amount borrowed by the defendant? OPD.
40. Onus to prove this issue was again upon the defendant. Defendant appears to be an educated person. Defendant has signed the agreement, some of which are printed bilingually i.e. in Hindi and English. There was no force or coercion. It is not stated that any term or condition of payment of interest is violative of any of the government guidelines. Defendant had agreed to pay the rate of interest by signing the loan document, out of his own free will.
41. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant.
Issue no.4:- Whether suit is not maintainable on account of filing of another suit before the court of learned Civil Judge as mentioned in para no.6 of the preliminary objections? OPD.
42. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
Details and nature of suit filed by the plaintiff in some other court are not stated in the written statement. No witness is called from other court to prove that present suit is not maintainable under law. Plaintiff might be having different causes of action against the defendant or any other person. In the absence of proper facts it cannot be said that the present suit is barred just because of Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 18 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:31:17 +0530 filing of some other suit or case before any other court.
43. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant.
Issue no. 5:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery from the defendant, if so, to what amount? OPP.
44. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has categorically stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for availing OD and credit card facility. The plaintiff has also proved all the relevant documents i.e. application for loan dated 22.09.2020, sanction letter dated 24.09.2020, agreement cum deed hypothecation dated 24.09.2020, cash credit agreement dated 24.09.2020, letter of undertaking dated 24.09.2020, request for overdraft facilities dated 22.09.2020 etc. vide which the loans were advanced to the defendant. No reply to the legal notice for recovery, sent by the plaintiff, was given by the defendant. Hence, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.10,30,789.19/- from the defendant. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 6:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to payment of interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
Digitally signedCanara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 19 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023 PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:31:24 +0530
45. The plaintiff has successfully proved all the relevant documents through which loans were advanced to defendant. The transactions between the parties are related to trade and business of plaintiff and by withholding the payment, defendant has put the plaintiff at loss. Plaintiff might have invested the said amount in the business and would have earned further profit. Plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 18% with monthly rests till realization. This court is however of the humble opinion that it would be just and proper that plaintiff be granted pendentelite and future interest @ 09% per annum. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Relief:-
46. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost for recovery of Rs.10,30,789.19/- (RUPEES TEN LAKHS THIRTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE AND NINETEEN PAISA ONLY) with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum.
47. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
48. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY PANDEY on the 14th day of March, 2026 PANDEY Date: 2026.03.14 15:31:33 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Canara Bank Vs Sh. Suman Kumar Page no. 20 of 20 CS Comm 1504/2023