Delhi District Court
M/S. Parwani Enterprises vs Hdfc Bank on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) 2704/2021
CNR No.DLCT01-009752-2021
1. M/s Parwani Enterprises
A Partnership Firm
having its principal place of business at
205, RG Mall, Opp. Pragatisheel
Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085.
2. Mrs. Vandana Arora
W/o Late Sh. Narinder Arora
R/o 9-D, Khukhrain Apartment
Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
3. Mr. Prateek Arora
S/o Late Sh. Narinder Arora
R/o 9-D, Khukhrain Apartment
Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
4. Ms. Sakshi Arora
D/o Late Sh. Narinder Arora
R/o 9-D, Khukhrain Apartment
Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005
Through its Branch Manager
Sh. Gaurav Chhabra.
2. Mrs. Rachna Gupta
W/o Sh. Pawan Gupta
R/o A-51, Navkunj Apartment,
Plot No.87, IP Extn., Delhi-110092 ....Contesting Defendants
CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 1 of 34
3. Mrs. Shalini Anand
W/o Sh. Neeraj Anand
R/o A-1/17, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
4. Mrs. Sangeeta
W/o Sh. Somnath Vasdev
R/o 60, Rajendra Market
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054. ..... Proforma Defendants
Date of Institution : 03.08.2021
Date of Arguments : 01.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a commercial suit for declaration, permanent & mandatory injunction, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and payment of interest, as filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
2. In brief, facts of the case as made out in the plaint are that the plaintiff no.1 is a partnership firm duly registered with Registrar of Firms. The plaintiff no.1 firm came into existence vide Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2006, according to which (i) Mrs. Shalini Aligh, (ii) Mrs. Shalini Anand and (iii) Mrs. Rachna Gupta were the partners of the said firm. The business of the plaintiff no.1 firm is of clearing and forwarding agent.
3. It is averred that the partners of plaintiff no.1 entered into a new partnership vide deed dated 30.04.2019, according to which, (i) Mrs. Shalini Anand and (ii) Mrs. Rachna Gupta were the partners. Thereafter, Mrs. Sangeeta also joined as a partner vide Partnership Deed dated CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 2 of 34 13.04.2012. It is averred that vide Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2019, new partners namely Mrs. Vandana Arora, Mr. Prateek Arora and Ms. Sakshi Arora also joined into the said business as partners and thus, as per the said partnership deed dated 01.04.2019, following were the partners of the plaintiff no.1 firm:
(i) Mrs. Shalini Anand
(ii) Mrs. Rachna Gupta
(iii) Mrs. Sangeeta
(iv) Mrs. Vandana Arora
(v) Mr. Prateek Arora
(vi) Ms. Sakshi Arora
4. It is averred that the defendant no.1 is a scheduled bank under the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and plaintiff no.1/Partnership Firm maintains a current account with the said bank bearing no.04392560004233 and the partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 was duly submitted to the defendant no.1 bank on 04.04.2019 alongwith KYC and vide letters dated 01.04.2019, the partners of plaintiff no.1 firm also informed the defendant no.1 about the admission of defendant no.4 and plaintiff no.2 to 4 as partners in the said firm and requested the defendant no.1 to add plaintiff no.2 as an authorized signatory along with defendant no.2 and 3 in the said bank account of plaintiff no.1 firm. It is further stated that the said documents were duly verified by the bank and got signed by all the partners in the presence of bank officials.CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 3 of 34
5. It is averred that vide retirement deed dated 20.04.2019, Mrs. Rachna Gupta was retired from plaintiff no.1 firm and said fact was duly communicated to defendant no.1 vide letter dated 20.04.2019, pursuant to which, the name of defendant no.2 was deleted from the plaintiff no.1's bank account and the plaintiff no.2 and 3 were made as authorized signatory of the said bank account.
6. It is case of the plaintiff that as the original retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 was not traceable by plaintiff no.1, the defendant no.2 along with other retiring partners i.e. defendant no.3 & 4 had executed a fresh retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 vide which, the aforesaid partners i.e. defendant no.2, 3 and 4 were retired from the plaintiff no.1 firm and after their retirement, the plaintiff no.2 to 4 are the existing partners of plaintiff no.1 firm and further vide letter dated 01.04.2020, plaintiff no.1 had requested defendant no.1 to keep plaintiff no.2 as a sole authorized signatory in the aforesaid current account and the plaintiffs have duly notified the aforesaid changes in the constitution of plaintiff no.1 firm to the defendant no.1 bank vide letter dated 10.04.2020.
7. It is further case of the plaintiffs that on 22.04.2021, the aforesaid account was blocked by defendant no.1 bank unilaterally and illegally without communicating any reason for the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff no.2 wrote an email dated 23.04.2021 to the Branch Manager Mr. Gaurav Chhabra protesting the blocking of said account and also informed him that the business of plaintiff no.1 is suffering on account of said blocking. The Branch Manager of CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 4 of 34 defendant no.1 bank informed the plaintiff no.2 through email dated 29.04.2021 that the said account was blocked on the complaint of defendant no.2, who alleged that the said account was operated illegally by the family members of Sh. Narinder Arora after his death i.e. on 26.10.2020. It was also alleged that the defendant no.1 bank doubts the genuineness of retirement deed provided by the plaintiffs and as a precautionary measure, the bank had marked "No Debit" on the said account. The said Branch Manager asked the plaintiffs that all existing and retired partners should visit the bank and confirm jointly that the said retirement deed is genuine in order to make that account operational again.
8. It is averred that the said request on the part of Branch Manager was totally illegal and arbitrary and the bank could not have stopped the operations of said account without any injunction order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is stated that the aforesaid account is a business account of plaintiff no.1 firm and all inward and outward remittances are routed through the said account, which includes all business expenditure, salaries of employee, taxes etc. and due to stoppage of account by defendant no.1, the plaintiffs have been suffering day to day losses, which could not be compensated in terms of money.
9. It is averred that at the time of marking 'debit freeze', an amount of Rs.10,33,193.41 was lying in the said account which the plaintiffs could have utilized for business activities. It is stated that the said amount has now been increased to Rs.16,00,972.41 as on 31.07.2021 due to CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 5 of 34 continuous 'debit freeze'. It is further stated that by blocking of said account, the defendant no.1 bank caused financial losses to the plaintiffs and is liable to pay interest @ 18 % per annum on the amount of Rs.10,33,193.41, which comes to Rs.51,461.50 as on 31.07.2021. Apart from this, the defendant no.1 bank is also liable to compensate the plaintiff for causing mental agony and harassment by marking 'debit freeze' on the said account which is assessed at Rs.2,00,000/-.
10. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.2 had duly executed the aforesaid retirement deed and she had retired by taking her share from the partnership deed i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 27.09.2019 vide Ref.
No.0000000252106967 and Rs.9,31,370/- on 06.10.2019 vide Ref No.0000000170705452. It is stated that after 'debit freeze' in the said account, plaintiffs have made several visits to the defendant no.1 bank on 26.04.2021, 30.04.2021, 03.05.2021, 19.06.2021 etc. requesting it to de- freeze the same, but the defendant no.1 did not de-freeze the same.
11. Hence, the present suit is filed while praying following reliefs:-
1. A decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, more specifically the defendant no.1 & 2 that the Retirement Deeds dated 20.04.2019 & 01.04.2020 are validly executed documents and after their execution, the defendant no.2 and/or defendant no.3 and /or defendant no.4 CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 6 of 34 have no right, title or interest in the plaintiff no.1 partnership firm of any nature whatsoever:
2. A decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, more specifically the defendant no.1 bank to remove its "No Debit" mark on current A/c no.04392560004233 maintained by the plaintiff no.1 firm and permit the plaintiffs to operate the said account without any interference and/ or obstruction;
3. A decree of Permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants more specifically the defendant no.2, thereby restraining her from representing herself as a partner of the plaintiff no.1 firm and further restraining her from making any complaint to any public authority (ies) and /or bank and / or any other third party relating to genuineness of Retirement Deed dated 20.04.2019 and 01.04.2020 and further restraining her from causing any interference and / or obstruction in the business of plaintiff no.1 firm in any manner;
4. A decree of Rs.51,461.50 in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1 bank alongwtih interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of marking 'debit freeze' as on 31.07.2021;
5. To pass on order thereby directing defendant no.1 bank to pay pendente lite and future interest on the amount of Rs.16,00,972.41.
6. A decree of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of plaintiffs CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 7 of 34 and against defendant no.1 bank towards compensation for causing mental harassment and agony to the plaintiff by marking illegal and arbitrary "debit freeze" on the aforesaid account.
12. Defendant no.1 contested the present suit by filing detailed written statement while submitting that plaintiff no.1 is a partnership firm maintaining a current account with the defendant no.1, which was opened on 08.05.2008 and during the course of banking relationship, the defendant no.1 received partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 of plaintiff no.1 firm. It is submitted that Mrs. Vandana Arora, Mrs. Shalini Anand & Mrs. Rachna Gupta were made as an authorized signatory and either of them can operate the said account on behalf of the plaintiff no.1. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 20.04.2019, plaintiff no.1 informed the defendant that the name of Mrs. Rachna Gupta be deleted from the said current account due to her retirement from the firm and Mrs. Vandana Arora and Mrs. Shalini Anand will continue to be remained as an authorized signatory of the said account of plaintiff no.1 and share of Mrs. Rachna Gupa has also been transferred to Mrs. Vandana Arora and that the defendant no.1 acceded to the request of change of mandate to operate the said account by Mrs. Vandana Arora and Mrs. Shalini Anand.
13. It is further submitted that on 11.04.2021, the defendant no.1 received a letter from Mrs. Rachna Gupta alleging that she is a partner in plaintiff no.1 and the said account is being illegally operated by the family members of Mr. Narender Arora and thus requested to stop the CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 8 of 34 operation of said account and being a prudent banker to safeguard the interest of plaintiff no.1, the defendant no.1 immediately marked 'debit freeze' in the said account and requested all the existing and retired partners to visit the branch and confirmed the various documents including Retirement Deed dated 20.04.2019.
14. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied as wrong. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 bank cannot validate the genuineness of Retirement Deed dated 20.04.2019 once the signatory of said documents is disputing the execution of same. It is further submitted that action of defendant no.1 is in interest of all the parties as some of the partners have disputed the validity of retirement deed and under these circumstances, the defendant no.1 has been constrained to mark the account as 'No Debit'. Thus, it is submitted that suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
15. Defendant no.2 & 3 also contested the present suit by filing detailed written statement while taking preliminary objections that plaintiff no.2, 3 and 4 have no right to represent the plaintiff no.1 in present suit or before any authority at any point of time and they alongwith Late Narinder Arora have illegally removed defendant no.2 and 3 from plaintiff no.1 firm and trying to illegally grab both Parwani Enterprises and Parwani Logistics; that defendant no.2 and 3 are subsisting partners in plaintiff no.1 firm since its inception and the plaintiff no.2, 3 and 4 have intentionally made defendant no.3 as a performa party to CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 9 of 34 conceal the rightful interest of defendant no.3 in it; that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed true facts.
16. It is submitted that defendant no.2 and 3 are the promoters and partners of M/s Parwani Enterprises and M/s Parwani Logistics since its inception and mother- in -law of late CA Narinder Arora was another partner in Parwani Enterprises having share of 33.33 % since inception. It is stated that defendant no.2, her husband CA Pawan Gupta, Ms. Shalini Anand, her husband and other partners of both the firms M/s Parwani Enterprises and Parwani Logistics alongwith late CA Narinder Arora had few meetings in year 2014, in the head office of Schneider at Gurgaon and appointed late CA Narinder Arora to run and manage the whole activities smoothly of both DC at Kundli, Haryana & Bhiwandi, Maharashtra. Due to long and close relationship of husband of defendant no. 2, CA Pawan Gupta and late Sh. Narinder Arora and the fact that husband of defendant no. 2 CA Pawan Gupta was only partner in M/s Narinder Arora and Co. Chartered Accountants, they authorized CA Narinder Arora as the auditor of M/s Parwani Enterprises and M/s Parwani Logistics to maintain books of accounts, auditing & filing of statutory returns (ESI, PF, TDS, GST & ITR etc.).
17. It is submitted that on 26.10.2020, CA Narinder Arora died due to Covid-19 and after his demise, to run the affairs of both the firms, defendants approached the family member of late Narinder Arora for handing over of all the CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 10 of 34 original documents/paper as well as current accounts USER ID and passwords of both the firms having current accounts in HDFC Bank and Indusind Bank, but they refused to hand over the same while stating that the defendants have no locus standi in any of the firms and they had already informed all the concerned person, authorities and banks about the same. Thereafter, the defendants alongwith CA Pawan Gupta visited HDFC bank and Indusind Bank on 12.04.2021 and brought the said fact in to their knowledge and requested to take immediate action and after repeated requests, the bank official checked the system and replied that the defendants are neither partners of Parwani Enterprises and Parwani Logistics nor authorized signatory in current accounts of both the firm. The defendants also visited Indusind Bank and requested to the manager to stop the operations of current accounts of both the firm and the bank acknowledged the request and marked 'Debit Block' in the current accounts of both the firm but the plaintiff no.3 had already transferred all the funds lying in the current accounts to his personal accounts before the bank could take any action. It is further submitted that on repeated requests of defendants, on 22.04.2021, HDFC bank stopped the debit operations in current accounts of both the firm.
18. It is submitted that the defendants as partners of both the firm, never signed any retirement deed and visited the HDFC Bank; the defendants asked from HDFC bank for the said retirement deed through various mails & reminders dated 30.04.2021, 01.05.2021, 03.05.2021 and 11.05.2021 but they never replied the same nor shared the retirement CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 11 of 34 deed with defendants; that officials in connivance with late CA Narinder Arora, HDFC Bank accepted the retirement deed without ensuring the attendance, confirmation and appearance of the defendants in HDFC bank and the HDFC bank officials on the basis of forged retirement deed, changed the bank operations and signatory details of Parwani Enterprises & Parwani Logistics without asking any legal documents from the alleged partners; that late Sh. Narinder Arora in connivance with HDFC Bank officials forged the signatures in maximum number of cheques of the defendants and illegally removed them from both the firms; that Narinder Arora alongwith his wife Vandana Arora, son Prateek Arora and daughter Sakshi Arora have defrauded the defendants by siphoning off the funds from the bank account even after the death of Narinder Arora in to their personal accounts; that defendants are the partners as per GST record as well as Income Tax Department; that defendants also lodged a police complaint to the ACP, Mandawali & Madhu Vihar against the plaintiff no. 2, 3 and 4 alongwith unknown bank officials of HDFC Bank for cheating, forgery, fraudulent transactions, dishonest intentions and allurement; that the retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 alleged to be executed between plaintiff no.2 to 4 and defendants no.2 to 4 is forged and fabricated.
19. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied as wrong. It is submitted that partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 is forged and does not bear the signature of defendants. It is further submitted that late Sh. Narinder Arora and his family i.e. plaintiff no.2 to 4 have fabricated CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 12 of 34 the alleged partnership deeds by forging the signature of defendants. It is thus submitted that the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
20. Replication to the written statements of defendant no.1, 2 and 3 were filed on behalf of plaintiffs, wherein plaintiffs denied the facts as mentioned in written statements while re-affirming the averments as pleaded in the plaint.
21. Perusal of record shows on 13.07.2023, Ld. Predecessor examined Sh. Gaurav Chhabra, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank under Order X CPC, who deposed that in the month of April, 2021, he was posted as Manager of HDFC Bank, Karol Bagh branch, Delhi and received a letter dated 11.04.2021 from the defendant no.2 Mr. Rachna Gupta requesting to stop the operation in the current account of the plaintiff no.1 firm and exhibited the same as Ex.CX-1, on the basis of which, the bank has marked "debit freeze" in the said account. He proved the email dated 23.04.2021 as Ex.CX-2, sent by Mr. Vandana Arora objecting to the blocking of current account of plaintiff no.1, which he responded through email dated 29.04.2021, which is part of Ex.CX-2 and letter dated 29.04.2021 i.e. Ex.CX-3.
22. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.10.2024:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 and 01.04.2020 are validly executed binding documents?
OPP CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 13 of 34 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 bank to defreeze and remove no debit mark from current bank account of plaintiff no.1 CA No.04392560004233? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from representing themselves as partners of plaintiff no. 1 firm? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.51,461/- against defendant no.1 bank alongwith interest @18% per annum? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on Rs.16,00,972/- (rate not specified)? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages of Rs.2 lakhs against defendant no.1 bank for mental harassment and agony? OPP
7. Relief.
23. To expedite the disposal of case, vide order dated 29.10.2024, Ld. Predecessor appointed Sh. Bharat Prakash, Advocate as Local Commissioner to record evidence of parties. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.06.2025, Ld. Predecessor observed that after examination of PW-1 on 04.12.2024, the cross examination of PW-1 on behalf of defendant no.2 & 3 has not been completed even within the six months and the Ld. Predecessor changed the LC in the present case and appointed Sh. Shriram Verma, Advocate as CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 14 of 34 LC to record further evidence in the present case, who submitted his report.
24. In support of its case, plaintiff examined Ms. Vandana Arora, (plaintiff no.2) as PW-1, who tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 has relied upon following documents:-
1. Power of Attorney i.e. Ex.PW1/1.
2. Form A and B regarding the plaintiff no.1 and its partners i.e. plaintiff no. 2 to 4 i.e. Ex.PW1/2 and PW1/3.
3. Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2006 i.e. Ex.PW1/4.
4. Partnership Deed dated 30.04.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/5.
5. Partnership Deed dated 13.04.2012 i.e. Ex.PW1/6.
6. Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2019 i.e. Ex.PW1/7.
7. Photocopy of KYC form along with letter dated 01.04.2019 and partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 i.e. Mark A(Colly).
8. Retirement Deed dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark B.
9. Covering letter dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark C.
10. Retirement Deed dated 01.04.2020 i.e. Ex.PW1/8.
11. Letter dated 01.04.2020 i.e. Mark D.
12. Letter dated 10.04.2020 i.e. Mark E.
13. Email dated 23.04.2021 i.e. Ex.PW1/9.
14 Email dated 29.04.2021 i.e. Ex.PW1/10.
15. Copy of bank statement of said account for FY CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 15 of 34 2020-21 and 2021-22 i.e. Ex.PW1/11.
16. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of emails sent and received by plaintiff and statement of account i.e. Ex.PW1/12.
17. GST Certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/13.
18. Form No. 3CB-3CD and ITR-5 for AY 2013-14 i.e. Ex.PW1/14.
19. Form No. 3CB-3CD and ITR-5 for AY 2020-21 i.e. Ex.PW1/15.
20. Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of GST certificate of plaintiff no.1 firm, ITRs and Audit reports/Form No.3CB/3CD pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, 2019-20 and 2020-21 by the plaintiffs i.e. Ex.PW1/16.
25. Plaintiff examined Sh. Rajesh Shrestha, Branch Operational Manager as PW-2. PW-2 proved the account opening form of A/c no.04392560004233 maintained in the name of M/s Parwani Enterprises alongwith KYC documents as Ex.PW2/1 (colly), account statement of said account number from 01.01.2019 to 18.12.2024 as Ex.PW2/2, KYC documents of Parwani Enterprises dated 04.03.2019 as Ex.PW2/3 (colly), KYC documents of Parwani Enterprises dated 20.04.2019 as Ex.PW2/4 (colly) and account statement of M/s Parwani Enterprises from 08.05.2008 to 01.01.2019 as Ex.PW2/5.
26. Defendant no.1 also examined Sh. Rajesh Shrestha, Branch Operational Manager of the bank as DW-1, who CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 16 of 34 tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 has relied upon following documents:-
1. Power of Attorney i.e. Ex.DW1/1.
2. Letter dated 11.04.2021 received by defendant no.1 from Mrs. Rachna Gupta i.e. Ex.CX-1.
3. Copy of ID Card i.e. Ex.DW1/3.
27. Arguments have been advanced by Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal, Mr. Ram Gupta and Mr. Praveen Kumar Yadav, Ld. Counsels for plaintiffs and by Mr. Anmol Mehta, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and also by Mr. Harsh Behl, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 and 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties and also gone through the record as well as written submissions, as filed on behalf of parties. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.1:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 and 01.04.2020 are validly executed binding documents? OPP
28. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. PW-1 in her affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed in line with the averments made in the plaint. As per PW-1, M/s Parwani Enterprises came into existence on 01.04.2006 vide partnership deed dated 01.04.2006 Ex.PW1/4 consisting of three partners namely Mrs. Shalin Aligh, Mrs. Rachna Gupta and Mrs. Shalini Anand. Thereafter, by virtue of new partnership deed dated 30.04.2009 i.e. CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 17 of 34 Ex.PW1/5, Mrs. Shalini Anand and Mrs. Rachna Gupta remained as partners of the said firm. Later on, a new partner Mrs. Sangeeta joined the plaintiff no.1 firm vide partnership deed dated 13.04.2012 i.e. Ex.PW1/6. Further, vide partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 i.e. Ex.PW1/7, new partners namely Mrs. Vandana Arora, Mr. Prateek Arora and Ms. Sakshi Arora had also joined the plaintiff no.1 firm.
29. As per PW-1, the plaintiff no.1 firm maintains a current account no.04392560004233 with the defendant no.1 bank and the said bank was informed about the partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 alongwith KYC form on 04.04.2019 regarding the admission of defendant no.4 and plaintiff 2 to 4 as partners and to add plaintiff no.2 as an authorized signatory alongwith defendant no. 2 and 3 and that those documents were duly verified by the bank and got signed by all the partners in presence of the bank officials. Similarly, it is deposed that the retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 whereby the defendant no.2 Mrs. Rachna Gupta retired from the firm was also communicated to defendant no.1 bank vide letter Mark-C and the said retirement deed was also verified by the bank. As per PW-1, since the original retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 Mark B was not traceable, the defendant no.2 alongwith defendant no.3 & 4 executed a fresh retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 whereby defendant no. 2 to 4 retired from the firm and plaintiff no. 2 to 4 became the only partners and same was also communicated to defendant no.1 bank with a request to keep the plaintiff no. 2 as sole CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 18 of 34 signatory of the said account. However, on 22.04.2021, the said current account of the firm was blocked by defendant no.1 bank unilaterally and illegally without any reason or communication on a complaint of defendant no.2, which caused mental agony, harassment and financial losses to the plaintiffs.
30. In her cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that she does not have any personal knowledge regarding the signatures on partnership deeds Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6 as same were not executed in her presence. To a specific question, as put by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 and 3, that in audit report Ex.PW1/15 filed for the assessment year 2020-21, Mrs. Rachna Gupta and Mrs. Shalini Anand were shown as existing partners of Parwani Enterprise, PW-1 deposed that the said ITR was filed by Sh. Pawan Gupta, without her consent and that Mrs. Shalini Anand was a partner but Mrs. Rachna Gupta was not the partner as she retired on 20.04.2019.
31. PW-2 Sh. Rajesh Shrestha, Branch Operational Manager, HDFC Bank, in which the plaintiff no.1 firm maintains a current account, produced the KYC document of Parwani Enterprises dated 04.03.2019 & 20.04.2019 and proved the same as Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly). In his cross examination, to a specific question as put by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 and 3 that whether after 20.04.2019 any document was submitted by any of the parties with respect to the account of the firm, the witness deposed that as per record, after 20.04.2019, no document was submitted by any of the parties.
CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 19 of 3432. Sh. Rajesh Shrestha, who was summoned by plaintiffs and examined as PW-2, was also produced in the witness box by the defendant no.1 bank as DW-1. In his affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A, DW-1 deposed that plaintiff no.1 firm is maintaining a current account bearing no.04392560004233 with the defendant no.1 which was opened on 08.05.2008. He deposed that during the course of banking relationship, defendant no. 1 received partnership deed dated 01.04.2019, according to which, Mrs. Shalini Anand, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mrs. Sangeeta, Mr. Prateek Arora, Ms. Sakshi Arora and Mrs. Vandana Arora were shown as partners and subsequently, vide letter dated 20.04.2019, plaintiff no.1 informed the defendant no.1 that name of Mrs. Rachna Gupta be deleted from the said current account due to her retirement and the plaintiff no. 1 and Mrs. Vandana Arora and Mrs. Shalini Anand will remain to continue as authorized signatory of said account and thereafter on 11.04.2021, he received a letter from Mrs. Rachna Gupta i.e. Ex. CX-1 alleging that she is partner in the plaintiff no. 1 and the current account of plaintiff no. 1 firm is being illegally operated by the family members of Mr. Narender Arora and thus requested to stop the operation of said account. As per DW-1, being a prudent banker and to safeguard the interest of plaintiff no.1, the defendant no. 1 marked the said account "debit freeze" and requested all the existing and retired partners to visit the branch and confirmed the various documents including retirement deed dated 20.04.2019, but despite that, none of the partners visited the defendant no.1 bank.
CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 20 of 3433. In his cross examination, to a specific question, as put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs about the standard operating procedure in case a partner resigns from a partnership firm or any operational changes in the account of firm is made, DW-1 replied that in case of any document presented by the parties, same is required to be signed in presence of bank officials concerning at the time of making changes in the account. He further admitted that all the partners of plaintiff no.1 firm have signed the documents Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly) in the presence of aforementioned officials of defendant no.1 bank i.e. Sh. Gaurav Chhabra, Ms. Maya Bisht and Sh. Akhilesh Singh.
34. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 and 3, when his attention was drawn on page no.363 & 364 of Ex.PW2/3 regarding the box tick symbol, DW-1 admitted that in case the condition mentioned in the application form is complied, the box tick symbol printed in front of the condition is ticked and further admitted that neither of the box is tick marked is at point A & A1 (in all the documents). He further confirmed that as he was not present at the time of execution of KYC documents Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly), therefore, he cannot say that the original documents were seen and verified or that the customer signed in the presence of bank official.
Arguments:-
35. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs argued that the defendant no.1 bank unilaterally and illegally blocked the current account of the firm on the complaint of defendant no.2, CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 21 of 34 though the copies of partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 and retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 alongwith KYC were submitted and verified by officials of the defendant no.1 bank. It is submitted that on account of marking 'debit freeze' in the aforesaid current account of the firm, all inward and outward remittances including business expenditure, salaries of employees, taxes etc. were stopped which caused mental agony, harassment and loss to the entire business reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff no. 1 firm.
36. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs vehemently contended that defendant no.1 bank could not have stopped the operation of the current account of the plaintiff no.1 without any order of injunction passed by a court of competent jurisdiction just on the asking of defendant no.2.
37. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs argued that the defendant no. 2 and 3 have taken inconsistent and mutually destructive stand by alleging that all partnership deeds/retirement deeds except the partnership deed dated 01.04.2006 are forged and fabricated and they have not explained about the retirement of Mrs. Shalini Aligh from the partnership. It is submitted that the retired partners have no locus to interfere in the functioning of a firm once they have voluntarily retired. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs further argued that plaintiff no.2 to 4 are the only existing partners of plaintiff no.1 firm and plaintiff no.2 is the sole authorized signatory of the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm maintained with defendant no.1 bank.
CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 22 of 3438. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs vehemently contended that no evidence was led by defendant no.2 and 3 to prove the plea taken by them in their written statement and therefore, the contents of their written statement cannot be read and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar vs. Manik Rao and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 573.
39. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 argued that admittedly, as per plaintiffs, the original retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 was not traceable and therefore, a fresh retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 was executed which was never shared with the bank. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 being a prudent banker and to protect the interest of the firm, had acted in good faith and marked a "debit freeze" on the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm.
40. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 and 3 argued that plaintiff no. 2, 3 and 4 with the sole motive to siphon off the funds and valuable assets of the plaintiff no. 1 firm submitted fabricated partnership deed dated 01.04.2019, retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 and 01.04.2020 bearing forged signatures of the defendant no.2. It is submitted that the plaintiff no. 2, 3 and 4 used stamp paper dated 11.06.2018 and 26.03.2019 for alleged retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 and 01.04.2020 respectively. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to explain that if defendant no. 2 Mrs. Rachna Gupta had retired on 20.04.2019, then how she could have again retired on 01.04.2020. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 and 3 further argued that the defendants have already filed police CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 23 of 34 complaints against plaintiff no. 2, 3 and 4 and the matter is under investigation before EOW, Delhi Police. Findings:-
41. Plaintiffs are seeking a decree of declaration that retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark-B whereby defendant no. 2 Mrs. Rachna Gupta decided to retire from the plaintiff no.1 firm and to transfer her share in favour of plaintiff no.2 Mrs. Vandana Arora as well as retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 i.e. Ex.PW1/8 whereby again Mrs. Rachna Gupta along with Smt. Shalini Anand and Smt. Sangeeta i.e. defendant no.2 to 4 decided to retire from the firm, were validly executed and as such, same are binding documents.
42. Defendant no. 2 and 3 have not led any evidence. No doubt drawing of an adverse inference against such party is a rule of evidence, but nonetheless, a rule for the purpose of appreciating and deciding the controversy. It is also a settled law that initial burden to prove its case lies upon the plaintiff and that a civil case is to be decided on the balance of probabilities. Reliance is placed upon an authority titled as Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 24 of 34 bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
43. Now the question comes to decide whether plaintiffs have proved that retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark B and 01.04.2020 i.e. Ex.PW1/8 were validly executed and are binding upon the parties. From the evidence led by the parties and documents proved on record, following facts are relevant to note:-
43.1. As per case of the plaintiffs, the official of defendant no.1 bank verified partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 Ex.PW1/7 and retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 Mark B by seeing the originals and obtaining signatures of all the partners on the copies of these deeds alongwith KYC documents. PW-2 Sh. Rajesh Shrestha, Bank Manager Operational, who produced the KYC documents of aforesaid deeds i.e. Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly) admitted that same bears the stamp and signature of Ms. Maya Bisht, Mr. Gaurav Chhabra, Mr. Akhilesh Singh and partners of plaintiff no.1 firm have also signed on the copies of these documents in presence of those officials but also confirmed in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 and 3 that as he was not present at the time of execution of KYC documents i.e. Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly), therefore, he cannot say that the original documents were seen and verified or that customer signed in the presence of those bank officials. Mr. Gaurav Chhabra, who is one of the official of defendant no.1, CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 25 of 34 whose signatures are appearing on KYC documents regarding verification of deeds i.e. Ex.PW1/7 dated 01.04.2019 and Mark B dated 20.04.2019 was examined under Order X CPC. He admitted that he had responded to email of plaintiff no.2 i.e. Ex.CX2 to the effect that they doubt the genuineness of retirement deed provided by plaintiff no.2, therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to summon the aforesaid bank officials in the witness box to prove the fact that all partners of partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 Ex.PW1/7 and retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 Mark B had personally appeared in front of them to verify those documents in order to update the record of the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm.
43.2. Retirement deed Ex.PW1/8 vide which, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Smt. Shalini Anand and Smt. Sangeeta Gupta retired from the plaintiff no.1 firm, is claimed to have been executed on 01.04.2020. The court can take judicial notice of the fact that from 25.03.2020 there was complete nationwide lockdown on the movement of public on account of Covid-19 pandemic till 31.05.2020, except emergency services.
43.3. There is no explanation that if Mrs. Rachna Gupta had retired from the plaintiff no.1 firm vide retirement deed Mark B dated 20.04.2019 and this fact was brought to the notice of Branch Manager of defendant no.1 bank vide letter dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark C and the name of Mrs. Rachna Gupta was also deleted from the records of the defendant no.1 bank as a partner, why the fact of previous CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 26 of 34 retirement of Mrs. Rachna Gupta vide retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 Mark B is not mentioned in the fresh retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 i.e. Ex.PW1/8. 43.4. PW-2 Sh. Rajesh Shrestha has admitted in his cross examination that as per record, after 20.04.2019 no document was submitted by any of the parties to the defendant no.1 bank. PW-1 has not explained by which mode they submitted the retirement deed Ex.PW1/8 dated 01.04.2020 or their letter dated 10.04.2020 i.e. Mark-E to the defendant no.1 bank. No personal acknowledgment of any official of the bank or any postal receipt/email is placed on record to show that retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 and letter dated 10.04.2020 i.e. Mark-E were submitted to the defendant no.1 bank during the period of nationwide lockdown or thereafter.
43.5. No notice was given to the Registrar of Firms about change in the constitution of a registered firm pursuant to retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark B and 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 in compliance of Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 immediately after such change made in the constitution of the registered firm. Ex.PW1/2 shows that the names of plaintiff no. 2, 3 and 4 were recorded in the Form A of Registrar of Firms on 17.06.2021 but there is no document on record to show that plaintiffs had also informed to the Registrar of Firms about the change in the constitution of the firm pursuant to partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 Ex.PW1/7, retirement deed dated 20.04.2019 Mark-B and retirement deed dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8.CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 27 of 34
43.6. PW-1 has also relied upon audit report and ITR of the firm for assessment year 2020-21 i.e. Ex.PW1/15 (OSR) and to a specific question to the effect that as per Ex.PW1/15 Mrs. Rachna Gupta and Mrs. Shalini Anand were existing partner of Parwani Enterprises, PW-1 deposed that Mrs. Shalini Anand was a partner but Mrs. Rachna Gupta was not a partner as she retired on 20.04.2019 and the said ITR was filed by Mr. Pawan Gupta without her consent. Form no.3-CB of Ex.PW1/15 shows that the audit report was filed on 05.12.2020 through Mrs. Shalini Anand being partner of plaintiff no.1 firm. There is no explanation that if as per case of the plaintiffs, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mrs. Shalini Anand retired from the partnership firm vide retirement deed dated 01.04.2020, how an ITR was filed filed by Mrs. Shalini Anand being partner of the firm on 05.12.2020 and why no representation or objection was submitted by plaintiff no. 2 to 4 before Income Tax Authority regarding unauthorized audit report and ITR.
43.7. In general, the date of purchase of stamp paper does not invalidate a document because it was purchased much earlier from the date of execution, however, as the gap is of about ten months between the date of purchase of stamp paper and execution of retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 Mark B and dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8, it was for the plaintiffs to disclose reasons for such a gap between the date of purchase of stamp paper and execution of retirement deeds, who wants to believe the court regarding execution of these deeds.CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 28 of 34
43.8. As per claim of the plaintiffs, defendant no.2 had duly executed the retirement deed by taking her share of Rs.10,000/- on 27.09.2019 and Rs.9,31,370/- on 06.10.2019. Retirement deed Mark B is of dated 20.04.2019 through which, initially defendant no.2 is claimed to have been retired from the partnership firm. No prudent person would execute retirement deed before getting his/her share, but as per plaintiffs, defendant no.2 executed retirement deed Mark B on 20.04.2019 and subsequently, received her share of Rs.10,000/- on 27.09.2019 and Rs.9,31,370/- on 06.10.2019.
44. After considering the aforementioned facts and relying upon the principle of preponderance of probabilities, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have failed to prove that retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 i.e. Mark B and dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 were validly executed by the partners of plaintiff no.1 firm and are binding documents. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue no.2:-
2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 bank to defreeze and remove no debit mark from current bank account of plaintiff no. 1 CA No.04392560004233? OPD
45. Though, the onus to prove this issue ought to have been upon the plaintiff, however, while framing of issues by Ld. Predecessor, it is mentioned that onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Perusal of record shows that CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 29 of 34 Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 04.05.2024, on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC as an interim measure, directed the defendant no.1 to de-freeze account no.04392560004233 subject to the condition that the plaintiff no.2 to 4 shall furnish a bank guarantee to the court of the amount in the said account on the date of de-freezing and to keep it alive till decision of the case and to maintain an account of loss and profit of the firm on yearly basis, pursuant to which, the plaintiffs furnished two bank guarantees cumulatively valuing Rs.17,23,424.61 and Rs.2,44,46,911.83. Later on, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for modification of order dated 04.05.2024 for withdrawal of amount of Rs.2,44,65,187/- was filed on behalf of plaintiffs, but same was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2025. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 Mark B and dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 were validly executed by the partners of plaintiff no.1 firm and are binding documents, plaintiff is not entitled for decree of mandatory injunction for issuing direction to defendant no.1 bank to defreeze and remove no debit mark from current bank account of plaintiff no. 1 CA No.04392560004233. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff. Issue no.3:-
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from representing themselves as partners of plaintiff no. 1 firm? OPP
46. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 30 of 34 view my findings on issue no.1 that plaintiffs have failed to prove that retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 Mark B and dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 were validly executed by the partners of plaintiff no.1 firm and are binding documents, plaintiff is also not entitled for decree of injunction to restrain the defendants representing themselves as partners of the plaintiff no.1 firm. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.4 & 5:-
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.51,461/- against defendant no.1 bank alongwith interest @18% per annum? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on Rs.16,00,972/- (rate not specified)? OPP
47. Both these issues are taken up together. Onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have claimed pre-suit interest for a sum of Rs.51,461/- @ 18 % per annum from the date of marking debit freeze i.e. 22.04.2021 in the account of plaintiff no.1 firm till filing of the suit. Plaintiffs have also claimed pendente lite and future interest on the amount of Rs.16,00,972/- i.e. the amount, which has been increased from Rs.10,33,193.41 to Rs.16,00,972/- due to marking of debit freeze @ 18 % per annum. PW-1 has not deposed about any agreed rate of interest regarding the amount deposited in the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm. Interest @ 18 % per annum is CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 31 of 34 on higher side, accordingly, it is held that the defendant no.1 bank shall credit the interest as per agreed rate of interest on the amount which was lying in the current account of the plaintiff no.1 firm from the date, when the same was marked 'debit freeze' i.e. 22.04.2021 till the date of decree, if same is not credited till date. Accordingly, this issue is decided partly in favour of the plaintiff no.1 firm.
Issue no.6:-
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages of Rs.2 lakhs against defendant no.1 bank for mental harassment and agony? OPP
48. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that act of defendant no.1 to 'debit freeze' the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm on the complaint of defendant no.2 caused mental harassment and agony to the plaintiffs. It was submitted that on account of the said act of the defendant no.1 bank, all the transactions of the plaintiff no. 1 firm regarding payment of salaries of employees, taxes etc. were affected and the plaintiff somehow paid the salaries of the employees of the firm and taxes etc from their personal accounts, which caused financial losses to the plaintiffs. It was also argued that defendant no.1 had no authority to put 'debit freeze' on the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm by assigning adjudicatory role to itself and at the most, the defendant no.1 could have asked the complainant to obtain an injunction order from the competent court of law.CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 32 of 34
49. It is admitted by DW-1 Sh. Rajesh Shrestha that the signatures of all the partners of plaintiff no.1 firm are appearing on Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (colly) and none of the tick box symbol in front of two statements put on the documents through rubber stamp i.e. "original seen and returned" and "customer signed in my presence" were marked, which shows that either the tick box symbols were left blank negligently or due to the reasons best known to those officials of the defendant no.1 bank at the time of verification of KYC documents.
50. In case of any complaint received on behalf of one of the partner of the firm, in order to secure the amount lying in the account of the partnership firm, if the bank put a 'debit freeze' on the said account, it cannot be said that it had no authority to do so. No doubt the parties effected from such debit freeze can approach the court to get remove the debit freeze but in case of asking the parties to obtain any injunction order for de-freezing the account, the possibility that the amount lying in the account is taken away by one of the partner, cannot be ruled out and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant no.1 was negligent by putting de-freeze on the current account of plaintiff no.1 firm. However, as the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the retirement deeds dated 20.04.2019 Mark B and dated 01.04.2020 Ex.PW1/8 are validly executed and binding documents, plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 33 of 34
Relief:-
51. In view of my findings on aforementioned issues, the suit of plaintiffs is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by File be consigned to Record Room. SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2026.01.20 16:19:14 +0530 Announced in the open court on 20th January, 2026 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) District Judge (Commercial Court)-08 Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS(Comm) 2704/21 M/s Parwani Enterprises & Anr. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Page 34 of 34