Delhi District Court
Ms Jupitor Polytex India vs Punjab National Bank on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ No. 611372/2016
CNR No. - DLCT01-000157-2011
M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd.
M-18, Badli, Industrial Estate,
Badli, Delhi-110042 ........ Plaintiff
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank
(Through Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer)
Head/Regd. Office- Plot No. 4, Sector-10,
Dwarka, Delhi-110075
Also having Branch at:
4018, Raghu Ganj, Chawri Bazar,
Delhi-110006
2. The Secretary,
MSME (Micro Small & Medium Enterprises)
CS DJ 611372/2016 1 of 33
M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr.
Judgment dated 30.03.2026
"A" Wing, 7th Floor, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi ....... Defendants
Date of Institution: 18.04.2011
Date of conclusion
of Final Arguments: 12.01.2026
Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 15,13,627/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Seven only), together with pendente-lite and future interest @ 14% per annum and costs of this Suit.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that the suit was originally instituted against three defendants, namely: (i) The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank; (ii) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank; and (iii) The Additional Development Commissioner & E.A., Office of the Development Commissioner (MSME). Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was moved by the plaintiff. The said application was disposed of by the learned predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 in the following terms:
"...A perusal of record reveals that the present suit for recovery of Rs. 15,13,627/- was filed by the plaintiff on 15.04.2011 by impleading the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Chawari Bazar, Delhi as defendant no. 1 and Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the aforesaid bank as defendant no. 2. Besides, Additional Development Commissioner and EA (MSME) was impleaded as defendant no. 3. A perusal of record further CS DJ 611372/2016 2 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr.
Judgment dated 30.03.2026 reveals that the claim of the plaintiff was substantially against Punjab National Bank and not against the individual Officers of the bank who were impleaded as defendants no. 1 and 2 and after the summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants, a written statement was filed not by the Officers of Punjab National Bank in their individual capacity but by the Punjab National Bank, Chawari Bazar through its Chief Manager on 11.03.2014. Similarly, the written statement on behalf of defendant no. 3 was filed on behalf of MSME by its Director and not by the Additional Development Commissioner. Thus, it is the substituted defendants, who are now being sought to be impleaded as defendants no. 1 & 2 in place of original defendants no. 1 to 3, who had been appearing and contesting the present suit. Thus, the present application, although, is being moved after the conclusion of trial i.e. at the stage of final arguments, however, the amendment if allowed is not going to cause any prejudice to the original defendants or for that matter to the substituted defendants, nor, in my considered opinion, same is going to change the nature of the suit as alleged by Ld. Counsels for defendants.
On the other hand, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid amendments if allowed shall assist the Court in effective adjudication of real question in controversy between the parties in the present suit which is pending since last more than twelve years. For the loss, if any, caused to the defendants due to filing of the present application by the plaintiff at such a belated stage, in my considered opinion, defendants can be compensated in terms of money. The application seeking amendment in the plaint is thus allowed to the extent it seeks amendment in the memo of parties and the consequential amendments subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to be paid by CS DJ 611372/2016 3 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 the plaintiff to the newly impleaded/substituted defendants no. 1 and 2 within a week from today, however, a bare perusal of the application shows that by virtue of amendment in para 11(iv) of the plaint, plaintiff has sought to make the defendants no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,75,331/-, whereas, as per the original plaint, it was the liability of substituted defendant no. 1 alone. The application of the plaintiff seeking amendment in para 11(iv) only to the extent plaintiff seeks to make both the substituted defendants jointly and severally liable to the extent of Rs. 10,75,331/- is thus disallowed.
The application is thus disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations..."
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the amended plaint, in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated and registered with the Registrar of Companies under the provisions of the Companies Act, as applicable. Defendant No. 1 is a banking institution, namely Punjab National Bank, and defendant No. 2 is the sanctioning authority competent to consider and grant subsidy under the relevant Government policies.
(b) That the plaintiff approached one of the branches of defendant No. 1, namely, Punjab National Bank, situated at 4018, Raghu Ganj, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006, for grant of a Cash Credit Limit (CCL) and a Term Loan (TL). The said branch, vide sanction letter dated 26.06.2008, granted the following facilities:
(A) Cash Credit Limit CS DJ 611372/2016 4 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr.
Judgment dated 30.03.2026 Rate of Interest: BPLR minus 1%, i.e., 11.50% per annum as on the date of sanction, subject to change from time to time. The above rate of interest (ROI) was applicable initially till review/renewal/enhancement. At the time of review/renewal/enhancement, the rate of interest was to be determined on the basis of actual rating derived from the audited balance sheet. (B) Term Loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) Rate of Interest: BPLR minus 1% plus 0.50% (Term Premia), i.e., presently 12% per annum.
The above ROI was also applicable initially till review/renewal/enhancement, and thereafter subject to revision on the basis of actual rating derived from the audited balance sheet. (Court's Observation: BPLR stands for Bench Mark Prime Lending Rate).
(c) That validity of both the sanctioned facilities, i.e., the Cash Credit Limit as well as the Term Loan, was 12 months.
(d) That the plaintiff duly utilized the aforesaid facilities through Account No. 0114008700002447.
(e) That the defendant No. 1, arbitrarily and without justification, failed to grant the agreed rebate of 1% in the rate of interest on both facilities with effect from December 2008 onwards, contrary to the sanction letter dated 26.06.2008. The Plaintiff, vide letter dated 12.01.2009, requested defendant No. 1 to review the rate of interest and restore the rebate of 1% below BPLR. However, defendant No.1, vide letter dated CS DJ 611372/2016 5 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 02.02.2009, failed to accede to the said request. Consequently, the plaintiff lodged a written complaint with defendant No.1 on 27.06.2009.
(f) That defendant No. 1, vide letter dated 16.06.2009 (received by the plaintiff in the first week of July 2009), initiated the process for renewal of the limits. The plaintiff, vide letter dated 06.08.2009, requested renewal of the Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) on the same initial terms and conditions as contained in the sanction letter dated 26.06.2008. Defendant No.1 again sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- vide letter dated 25.01.2010. But, defendant No. 1 did not revise the rate of interest on the Term Loan. Thus, vide letter dated 25.01.2010, defendant No.1 sanctioned CC Limit and Term Loan but revised the rate of interest only in respect of the Cash Credit Limit (CC Limit) and not the Term Loan.
(g) That the plaintiff utilized the Term Loan to the extent of Rs. 48,00,000/-
(Rupees Forty-Eight Lakhs). The plaintiff was entitled to subsidy on the Term Loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the revised guidelines of the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) dated 10.08.2006 for "Fully Automatic Micro Processor Controlled Plastic Injection Moulding/Extrusion Machine." The Plaintiff purchased the said machine under the aforesaid subsidy scheme and was thus entitled to subsidy amounting to Rs. 9,62,983/-.
(h) That despite repeated requests and protests, the branch of defendant No.1 failed to grant the agreed rebate of 1% interest as settled in the CS DJ 611372/2016 6 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 sanction letter dated 26.06.2008. The plaintiff again addressed letters dated 25.02.2010 and 25.05.2010 to defendant No. 1 highlighting its grievances. The Plaintiff also wrote to defendant No. 2 vide letter dated 29.06.2010, requesting grant of subsidy under the Government scheme, stating that its case was fully covered and that it was entitled to subsidy of Rs. 9,62,983/-.
(i) That since defendant No.1 failed to grant the agreed rebate of 1% in the interest rate as per the initial terms and conditions, the plaintiff, vide letter dated 10.07.2010, requested closure of the Cash Credit facility. Consequently, defendant No.1 issued a "No Dues Certificate" in respect of the Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
(j) That as the defendants failed to consider the repeated requests and representations of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, vide letter dated 22.09.2010, seeking directions to the defendants to refund the excess amount charged by way of denial of rebate in the Cash Credit Limit and Term Loan from December 2008 to January 2010. In response thereto, the complaint was partly allowed and defendant No.1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,224/-. However, the grievance of the plaintiff was not fully redressed. The plaintiff received Draft No. 335451 dated 24.11.2010 for Rs. 2,65,224/-, but did not present the same for encashment as the said amount did not satisfy the plaintiff's legitimate claim.
CS DJ 611372/2016 7 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
(k) That, as per para 11 of the amended plaint [which is to be read in light of the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court (as noted hereinabove) and in paragraph 11 of the original plaint], the defendants are liable to pay the following amounts to the Plaintiff;
(i) Defendant No. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,46,816/- towards charges of excess interest and interest thereon on above mentioned cash credit limit (which includes the differences of Interest w.e.f. December 2008 to Januarу 2010 Rs. 2,00,160/- Plus Rs. 16,346/- towards interest @ 14% from December 2008 to January 2010 on Rs.2,00,160/- Plus Rs. 30,310/- towards interest @ 14% from February 2010 to January 2011);
(ii) Defendant No. 1 is further liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,36,932/- towards charges of excess interest and interest thereon on above mentioned Term Loan (which includes the differences of Interest w.e.f. December 2008 to January 2010 Rs.1,18,899/- Plus Rs. 18,033/- towards interest @14% from December 2008 to January 2010 on Rs. 1,18,899/-);
(iii) Defendant No. 1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 54,548/- towards processing fees with interest (which includes the processing fee charge of Rs. 49,365/- for the third Year and interest on the said amount Rs. 5183/- @ 14% w.e.f. May 2010 to January 2011);
CS DJ 611372/2016 8 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
(iv) A sum of Rs. 10,75,331/- towards grant of subsidiaries with interest (which includes the Principle amount towards grant of subsidy of Rs. 9,62,983/- plus Interest @ 14% p.a. w.e.f. April 2010 to January 2011 of Rs. 1,12,348/-); Total of which comes to Rs.15,13,627/-.
(l) Hence, the present suit.
4. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues in the present suit, appearances were entered on behalf of the defendants. Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 2. The right of defendant No. 1 to file its written statement was initially closed vide order dated 28.11.2011 for failure to file the same within the stipulated period. However, as per the record, an opportunity was subsequently granted to defendant No. 1 vide order dated 12.03.2015, and its written statement was thereafter taken on record.
5. The defendant/ Punjab National Bank in its written statement inter alia pleaded that;
(a) That the plaintiff had approached defendant No. 1 for grant of Cash Credit Limit to the extent of Rs. 200 lacs and Term Loan facility of Rs. 50,00,000/- which were sanctioned vide letter dated 26.06.2008, having rate of interest BPLR-1%, i. e. 11.50% as on date and subject to change from time to time and BPLR-1% + 0.50% (Term Premia), i. e. 12% as on the date and subject to change from time to time, respectively.
(b) That in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions of sanction, the loan facilities were duly reviewed by defendant No. 1 in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
CS DJ 611372/2016 9 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 Upon renewal of the Cash Credit Limit, the rate of interest was reassessed on the basis of the rating of the account, and the same was revised to the prevailing BPLR, as per the applicable norms.
(c) That there was neither any illegality nor arbitrariness in the review process undertaken by the defendant Bank, as falsely alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant Bank, vide its letter dated 02.02.2009, duly informed and clarified to the plaintiff the issues raised in the plaintiff's earlier letter dated 12.01.2009. Despite the specific and detailed explanation furnished by the defendant Bank, the plaintiff once again raised substantially similar issues vide letter/complaint dated 27.06.2009, which allegations are wholly untenable and devoid of merit.
(d) That a request from the plaintiff was received by the defendant bank vide letter dated 06.08.2009 for renewal of existing financial facilities accorded by the defendant bank to the plaintiff. It is relevant to submit that the plaintiff also requested the defendant bank for grant of additional financial facility of LC Limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- vide their referred letter dated 06.08.2009.
(e) That, in so far as the alleged benefit of Rs. 9,62,983/- claimed by the plaintiff is concerned, it is submitted that defendant No. 1 had duly forwarded the plaintiff's request/application, along with the complete set of requisite documents, through the proper channel to the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India/ defendant No. 2. However, the said Ministry rejected the plaintiff's CS DJ 611372/2016 10 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 claim vide its letter dated 22.06.2010, which was received in the office of the answering defendant Bank on or about 23.06.2010. Upon receipt of the aforesaid communication, defendant No. 1 duly informed the plaintiff of the decision of the said Ministry vide its letter dated 22.07.2010.
(f) That, for the sake of clarification, it is submitted that the concerned department, i.e., defendant No. 2, namely the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, informed defendant No. 1 that only those enterprises/ units are eligible for subsidy under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) in whose favour Term Loan facilities were sanctioned by the financial institution on or after 13.07.2009. It was specifically conveyed that, as per the policy in force, cases where financial assistance had been granted/sanctioned prior to 13.07.2009 were not eligible for grant of subsidy. In the present case, the Term Loan was sanctioned to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 vide sanction letter dated 26.06.2008, i.e., prior to the cut-off date of 13.07.2009.
(g) It is, therefore, submitted that defendant No. 1 was neither responsible nor competent to take any independent decision regarding grant of subsidy to the plaintiff, as the same was subject to consideration and approval by the competent authority, i.e., defendant No. 2, in accordance with the applicable policy guidelines. Consequently, no liability can be fastened upon defendant No. 1 in this regard.
CS DJ 611372/2016 11 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
(h) That the answering defendant Bank acted strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and applicable banking norms. The rate of interest conveyed vide letter dated 26.06.2008 was applicable only till review/renewal of the facilities, after which it was revised as per policy and account rating. There was neither any illegality nor arbitrariness in such revision. If the plaintiff had any genuine grievance regarding refusal of 1% rebate, it could have shifted its banking arrangements to another institution. Instead, the plaintiff sought additional facilities, including an LC facility (vide letter dated 06.08.2009), which belies its allegations. The claim of Rs. 9,62,983/- towards subsidy is without basis, and the answering defendant cannot be held liable for the decision of the competent authority.
(i) That the plaintiff approached the Banking Ombudsman for redressal of its grievances. The answering defendant duly appeared through its representative and filed its reply. Pursuant to the directions of the learned Banking Ombudsman, the answering defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2,65,224/- to the Plaintiff vide Draft No. 335451 dated 24.11.2010. However, the Plaintiff has not presented the said draft for encashment.
(j) Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. The defendant/ the Secretary, MSME (Micro Small & Medium Enterprises) in its written statement inter alia pleaded that;
(a) That as per Clause 14 (viii) of the revised guidelines dated 20.04.2006 under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) issued by CS DJ 611372/2016 12 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 the Government of India, the eligible Primary Lending Institution (PLI), i.e., Punjab National Bank in the present case, is responsible for ensuring the eligibility of units for sanction of subsidy in accordance with the scheme guidelines, as well as for disbursement and monitoring of the assisted units. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 is responsible for determining eligibility for subsidy under CLCSS as per the applicable guidelines.
(b) That vide letter dated 25.05.2010, the defendant No. 1 sought clarification for eligibility of subsidy to the unit which was replied to defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 22.06.2010. Subsequently the unit vide letter dated 29.06.2010, sought clarification for subsidy under CLCSS which was replied to the unit vide this office letter dated 01.11.2010.
(c) That under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS), eligibility for subsidy is determined with reference to the date of sanction of the Term Loan. As per the prescribed procedure, any technology/plant and machinery becomes eligible for subsidy only from the date it is approved by the Technical Sub-Committee under the scheme, and such approval does not operate retrospectively. Consequently, loans sanctioned prior to the approval of a particular technology/plant and machinery do not qualify for subsidy.
(d) In the present case, as per letter dated 25.05.2010 issued by Punjab National Bank (defendant No. 1), the technology adopted by the plaintiff's unit was covered under the 2nd Supplement of the CLCSS CS DJ 611372/2016 13 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 guidelines approved on 13.07.2009, whereas the Term Loan had been sanctioned on 23.06.2008. Therefore, the Plaintiff's unit was not eligible for subsidy under CLCSS for the said technology/plant and machinery.
(e) Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Following issues were framed in the present suit vide Order dated 28.11.2011:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,13,627/- as claimed in para 11 of the plaint and against whom the plaintiff is so entitled ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so at what rate and for which period ? OPP (3) Relief.
8. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff Company examined Sh. Sat Narain Singhal, Director of the plaintiff Company, as PW1, Sh. Yog Raj, UDC in the Ministry of MSME as PW2, and Sh. Sunil Singhal, Authorised Representative of the plaintiff Company as PW3.
9. It may be noted that the record shows that Sh. Sat Narain Singhal, Director of the plaintiff Company, was examined as PW1 and cross-examined by defendant No. 2 before being discharged vide order dated 15.04.2013. Subsequently, as noted earlier, an opportunity was granted to defendant No. 1 vide order dated 12.03.2015, and its written statement was taken on record. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 was given an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Sat Narain Singhal. In the meantime, the plaintiff sought substitution of its earlier Authorized Representative, Sh. Sat Narain Singhal, who was seriously ill; the same was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2015, CS DJ 611372/2016 14 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 and Sh. Sunil Singhal was substituted as the new AR. Sh. Sunil Singhal was then examined as PW3, relying on the same set of documents that had been exhibited during the examination of Sh. Sat Narain Singhal as PW1.
10. During the examination-in-chief, PW1 Sh. Sat Narain Singhal had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith the following documents:-
(i) Ex.PW1/1: Original Board Resolution dated 02.04.2011 in favour of deponent
(ii) Ex.PW1/2: Certificate of Incorporation
(iii) Ex.PW1/3: Letter dated 26.06.2008 issued to plaintiff by defendant No.1
(iv) Ex.PW1/4: Letter dated 12.01.2009 written by plaintiff to defendant No.1
(v) Ex.PW1/5: Letter dated 02.02.2009 written by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff
(vi) Ex.PW1/6: Letter dated 27.06.2009 written by plaintiff to defendant No.1
(vii) Ex.PW1/7: Letter dated 06.08.2009 written by plaintiff to defendant No.1 regarding renewal of Cash Credit Limit and approval of LC Limit
(viii) Ex.PW1/8: Letter dated 25.01.2010 written by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff sanctioning credit facilities to plaintiff
(ix) Ex.PW1/9: Letter dated 18.02.2010 written by defendant No. 1
(x) Ex.PW1/10: Letter dated 12.12.2009 written by defendant No. 1 to circle head CS DJ 611372/2016 15 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
(xi) Ex.PW1/11: Letter dated 25.05.2010 written by plaintiff to defendant No.1
(xii) Ex.PW1/12: Letter/ e-mail dated 25.06.2010
(xiii) Ex.PW1/13: Letter dated 29.06.2010 written by plaintiff to defendant No. 2
(xiv) Ex.PW1/14: Letter dated 19.07.2010
(xv) Ex.PW1/15: Letter dated 10.07.2010 (xvi) Ex.PW1/16: Letter dated 22.09.2010 written by plaintiff to Banking Ombudsman Officer (xvii) Ex.PW1/17: Letter dated 24.11.2010 issued by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff enclosing copy of DD dated 24.11.2010 for an amount of Rs.
2,65,224/- (as per advisory dated 19.11.2010 issued by Banking Ombudsman).
(xviii) Ex.PW1/18: Letter/ e-mail dated 27.12.2010 (xix) Ex.PW1/19: Letter dated 01.02.2011 written by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 (xx) Ex.PW1/20: Copies of guidelines of Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (xxi) Ex.PW1/21: Banking Ombudsman Order dated 23.02.2011 (xxii) Ex.PW1/22: Legal Notice dated 10.03.2011 (xxiii) Ex.PW1/23: Postal receipts
11. Sh. Yog Raj, UDC in the Ministry of MSME had been examined as PW2. He had brought the summoned records which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/A (Colly). [Court's Observation: Documents, in fact, were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (Colly)].
CS DJ 611372/2016 16 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
12. Sh. Sunil Singhal had been examined as PW3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. Board Resolution dated 16.05.2015 in his favour was exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. He relied on documents earlier exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/23.
13. All the witnesses were thereafter cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendants. No other PW was examined. PE was accordingly closed vide order dated 31.08.2017 and thereafter the suit was posted for DE.
14. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined, namely, Sh. Kamal Girdhar, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chawri Bazar, Delhi as D1W1 and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Assistant Director, MSME Development Institute, New Delhi as D3W1.
15. During the examination-in-chief, D1W1 Sh. Kamal Girdhar had deposed in line with the contents of the written statement of defendant No. 1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D1W1/A alongwith the following documents:-
(i) Ex.D1W1/1: GPA dated 28.03.2014
(ii) Ex.D1W1/2: Letter dated 22.06.2010
(iii) Ex.D1W1/3: Letter dated 22.07.2010
16. During the examination-in-chief, D3W1 Sh. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar had deposed in line with the contents of the written statement of defendant No. 2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D3W1/A.
17. No other DW was examined. DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 07.01.2019 and thereafter the suit was listed for final arguments.
18. In order to adjudicate the present suit, this Court heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant No. 1. None appeared on CS DJ 611372/2016 17 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 behalf of defendant No. 2 at the time of final arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also filed brief written submissions. It is noted that written submissions on behalf of defendant No. 2 are already on record, having been filed earlier before the learned predecessor of this Court.
19. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the entire record. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,13,627/- as claimed in para 11 of the plaint and against whom the plaintiff is so entitled ?
OPP
20. The plaintiff contends that the defendants wrongfully denied the agreed rebate in the rate of interest on both the Cash Credit facility and the Term Loan, and also failed to grant the subsidy to which the plaintiff was entitled, thereby causing financial loss. As set out in paragraph 11 of the plaint/ amended plaint, the plaintiff has claimed amounts under four distinct heads;
(i) Excess interest charged on Cash Credit limit along with interest
(ii) Excess interest on Term Loan along with interest
(iii) Processing fees along with interest
(iv) Unpaid subsidy amount along with interest
21. The plaintiff's entitlement under each of these heads is examined separately below.
(i) Excess interest charged on Cash Credit limit along with interest, (ii) Excess interest on Term Loan along with interest and (iii) Processing fees along with interest CS DJ 611372/2016 18 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
22. The plaintiff's case is that defendant No. 1 sanctioned in its favour a Cash Credit Limit (CCL) of Rs. 2 crores and a Term Loan (TL) of Rs. 50 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 26.06.2008 (Ex. PW1/3).
23. In respect of the Cash Credit Limit, the plaintiff was granted a concession in the rate of interest in the form of a rebate of 1% below the Bench Mark Prime Lending Rate (BPLR), i.e., BPLR minus 1%, which worked out to 11.50% per annum as on the date of sanction, subject to variation from time to time.
24. In respect of the Term Loan, the plaintiff was granted a concessional rate of interest in the form of a rebate of 1% below the Bench Mark Prime Lending Rate (BPLR), i.e., BPLR minus 1%, which worked out to 11.50% per annum, along with an additional 0.50% (term premia), thereby making the effective rate of interest 12% per annum as on the date of sanction, subject to variation from time to time.
25. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 1, without any prior intimation and in an arbitrary manner, discontinued the agreed rebate in the rate of interest on both the Cash Credit Limit (CCL) and the Term Loan (TL) with effect from December 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff addressed a letter dated 12.01.2009 (Ex. PW1/4) to defendant No. 1. In response, defendant No. 1, vide letter dated 02.02.2009 (Ex. PW1/5), justified its action on the ground of prevailing market conditions and declined to accede to the plaintiff's request.
26. In the meantime, the plaintiff vide letter dated 06.08.2009 (Ex. PW1/7), requested renewal of both the facilities, namely the Cash Credit Limit (CCL) and the Term Loan (TL). Defendant No. 1, vide letter dated 25.01.2010 (Ex. PW1/8), renewed the said facilities. However, according to the plaintiff, at the time of renewal, defendant No. 1 withdrew the rebate in the rate of interest in respect of the CS DJ 611372/2016 19 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 Cash Credit Limit, while no corresponding revision or change was made in respect of the Term Loan.
27. Consequently, the plaintiff claims refund of excess interest charged. In respect of the Cash Credit Limit, the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 2,00,160/- towards excess interest charged for the period from 01.12.2008 to January 2010, along with interest thereon, totaling Rs. 2,46,816/-. In respect of the Term Loan, the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 1,18,899/- towards excess interest charged for the period from 01.12.2008 to January 2011, along with interest thereon, totaling Rs. 1,36,932/-. [Court's Observation: It appears that the plaintiff has inadvertently written January, 2010 instead of January 2011 in paragraph 11(ii) of the plaint/ amended plaint]. The plaintiff has detailed the calculation in document Ex.PW1/19.
28. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, being aggrieved by the arbitrary actions of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff approached the Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi. The Banking Ombudsman, vide letter dated 23.02.2011 (Ex. PW1/21), observed that defendant No. 1 ought not to have altered the rate of interest from BPLR minus 1% in violation of the agreed terms and conditions of the sanctioned loans. It was further observed that the bank was at liberty to review the rate of interest only at the time of renewal of the facilities, i.e., on 25.01.2010. The Ombudsman also held that the charging of processing fees for the third year was inappropriate, particularly as the delay in renewal was attributable to the bank.
29. The defendant No. 1 issued a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 2,65,224/- (Ex. PW1/17) towards interest on both the loan facilities. However, the plaintiff did not encash the said amount, contending that it was neither adequate nor in full and final satisfaction of its legitimate claims, particularly as the Banking Ombudsman had not CS DJ 611372/2016 20 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 adjudicated upon the plaintiff's claim regarding the unpaid subsidy amount along with interest.
30. Relevant observations of the Banking ombudsman made in the letter dated 23.02.2011 (Ex. PW1/21) are reproduced herein below;
"Examination of the case revealed that the bank should not have changed the rate of interest of the loans from BPLR-1% to BPLR as per the agreement and terms of sanction of the loans. The bank was free to revise the rate of interest of the loans at the time of their renewal/review/enhancement only and they did it accordingly on 25.01.2010 when the loans were renewed. The charging of processing fee by the bank for the third year was found to be inappropriate as the renewal of the loans got delayed at the bank's end. The bank's reply towards the MSE status and subsidy was, however, found to be reasonable and acceptable."
31. Thus, the plaintiff's entitlement under the heads of (i) excess interest charged on the Cash Credit Limit along with interest, (ii) excess interest charged on the Term Loan along with interest, and (iii) processing fees along with interest, appears to have been accepted by defendant No. 1, inasmuch as the findings contained in the letter dated 23.02.2011 (Ex. PW1/21) issued by the Banking Ombudsman were not challenged.
32. Accordingly, the only issue that remains for determination is whether, at the time of renewal of both the facilities vide letter dated 25.01.2010 (Ex. PW1/8), defendant No. 1 revised or altered the rebate in the rate of interest in respect of the Term Loan. In other words, it is to be determined whether defendant No. 1 continued to extend the 1% rebate in the rate of interest on the Term Loan, as alleged by the plaintiff, thereby entitling the plaintiff to claim CS DJ 611372/2016 21 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 refund of excess interest for the extended period from 01.12.2008 to January 2011 (as opposed to the period up to January 2010).
33. Here, I am reproducing para 6 of the original plaint of the suit;
"6. That the Defendant No.1 vide Letter dated-16.06.2009 (which was received by Plaintiff in the 1st Week of July 2009) regarding renewal of the Limit. The Plaintiff vide letter dated 06.08.2009 has requested the Defendant No.1 for renewal of cash Credit Limits of Rupees Two Hundred Lac on the same initial terms and conditions dated 26.06.08. And, the Defendant No.1 again sanctioned the cash credit limit of Rupees Two Hundred Lac, with interest BPLR 1% as on 11.50% as on date and subject to change from time to time, vide letter dtd 25.1.10. But the Defendant No.1 did not revise the interest rate on term loan, Whereas in the initial sanction letter dated 26.06.2008 both the Loans were mentioned separately with rebate in the rate of interest. Thus the Defendant No. 1 letter vide dated 25.1.2010 has sanctioned CC Limit and term loan but rate of interest was changed only for CC Limit."
34. The defendant/ Punjab National Bank replied to para 6 of the plaint in its written statement thus;
"6. Contents of para 6 of the plaint are admitted to the extent that request from the plaintiff was received by the defendant bank vide letter dated 6/8/2009 for renewal of existing financial facilities accorded by the defendant bank. It is further relevant to submit that the plaintiff also requested defendant bank for grant of additional financial facility of LC Limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- vide their referred letter dated 6/8/2009. Rest of the para is not disputed being matter of record . However, it is submitted respectfully that the defendant bank has to govern its financial activities as CS DJ 611372/2016 22 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 per banking norms and guidelines issued by the RBI time to time and not as per the one sided expectation of the customers/plaintiff. Defendant bank is expected to address greater social and national issues and fulfill such expectation than the individual one."
35. The relevant extracts from the cross-examination of PW3, conducted on behalf of defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank), on this aspect are reproduced hereinbelow;
"At this stage, the witness is confronted with the document Ex.PW-1/8 marked as PW-3/X-3 wherein rate of interest has been mentioned as BPLR plus 1.5%.
It is for working capital of 200 lakhs whereas in the same document no rate of interest is mentioned in LC limits of 75 lakhs. Q. Is it correct that you had requested bank vide your letter dated 10.08.2009 for renewal of existing loan facilities which was accepted and conveyed to you by the bank vide its letter dated 25.01.2010 Ex. PW-1/8. Ans. I do not remember our date of letter but facilities were provided to us by the bank vide its letter dated 25.01.2010."
36. A plain reading of the letter dated 25.01.2010 (Ex. PW1/8) reveals that there is no mention of withdrawal of the rebate in the rate of interest in respect of the Term Loan, whereas the rebate on the Cash Credit Limit is explicitly stated to have been withdrawn. Furthermore, no suggestion was put to PW-3 on behalf of defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank) that, at the time of renewal, the rebate in the rate of interest on the Term Loan was also withdrawn by the bank vide the said letter.
CS DJ 611372/2016 23 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
37. This court accordingly holds that the plaintiff has been able to prove on record that defendant No. 1 continued to extend the 1% rebate in the rate of interest on the Term Loan, as alleged by the plaintiff, thereby entitling the plaintiff to claim refund of excess interest for the extended period from 01.12.2008 to January 2011.
38. The plaintiff as such is held entitled for amounts under the heads of (i) excess interest charged on the Cash Credit Limit along with interest, (ii) excess interest charged on the Term Loan along with interest, and (iii) processing fees along with interest as per para 11 of the amended plaint [which is to be read in light of the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court (as noted hereinabove) and in paragraph 11 of the original plaint]. That is, Rs. 2,46,816/- towards excess interest charged on the Cash Credit Limit, Rs. 1,36,932/- towards excess interest charged on the Term Loan and Rs. 54,548/- towards processing fees.
(iv) Unpaid subsidy amount along with interest
39. The case of the plaintiff on this aspect is that it was entitled to subsidy (on the Term Loan of Rs. 50 lakhs) under the revised guidelines of the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) dated 10.08.2006, in respect of a "Fully Automatic Micro Processor Controlled Plastic Injection Moulding/Extrusion Machine" purchased by the plaintiff in accordance with the scheme. The plaintiff contends that it fulfilled all the requisite terms and conditions, and is therefore entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 9,62,983/-. In support of its claim, the plaintiff relies upon a letter dated 12.12.2009 (Ex. PW1/10), issued by the Branch Head of CS DJ 611372/2016 24 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 defendant/ Punjab National Bank to its Circle Head, wherein it was stated that the plaintiff was eligible to claim the subsidy.
40. The stand of defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank) is that the plaintiff's claim for subsidy was duly forwarded to defendant No. 2 (MSME) through its Regional Office; however, the same was rejected by defendant No. 2. This rejection was communicated to defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 22.06.2010 (Ex. D1W1/2), which was thereafter conveyed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 22.07.2010 (Ex. D1W1/3).
41. Defendant No. 2 (MSME) contends that the plaintiff had availed financial assistance in June 2008 for certain plant and machinery, including a multi-layer fully automatic microprocessor-controlled plastic extrusion machine and related equipment. At the time of sanction of the Term Loan, such machinery was not included in the list of eligible plant and machinery under the applicable CLCSS guidelines (as revised in April 2006). The said technology was brought within the ambit of the scheme only pursuant to the 2nd Supplement of the CLCSS guidelines approved on 13.07.2009. It is further contended that, under the scheme, eligibility for subsidy is determined with reference to the date of sanction of the Term Loan, and any subsequent inclusion of technology does not operate retrospectively. Accordingly, since the Term Loan in the present case was sanctioned on 23.06.2008, i.e., prior to the approval of the relevant technology on 13.07.2009, the plaintiff is not entitled to subsidy under the CLCSS.
42. The relevant extracts from the cross-examination of PW3, conducted on behalf of defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank) as well as on behalf of defendant No. 2 (MSME), on this aspect are reproduced hereinbelow;
CS DJ 611372/2016 25 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 "Cross-examination on behalf of defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank) Q. I put it to you that in terms of your request defendant bank has forwarded your request to the defendant No. 3 for grant of Rs. 9,62,983/- under the scheme CLCSS ?
Ans. We were informed by the bank much earlier. I do not remember the date, that the documents have been processed for the subsidy and we are eligible for subsidy.
I am not aware that above referred amount of Rs. 9,62,983/- was to be paid by the Ministry. I was told that the bank would credit the same amount in our account against the subsidy. I do not remember the date but the bank told us the same and we completed all our formalities with the bank...
The defendant no. 3 has been made party to the suit as we were told after two years that bank would not pay the subsidy and the same can be availed from the concerned Ministry and thereafter we made defendant no. 3 as a party...I am not aware that above mentioned amount on account of subsidy was to be credited by the defendant bank once the same was sanctioned and paid by the defendant no. 3. It is correct that our claim forwarded by the defendant bank got rejected by the defendant no. 3. It is correct that the plaintiff have had information of rejection of their claim. The plaintiff company was told that the company is not eligible for grant of subsidy. However, I don't remember the exact ground of non-eligibility of the plaintiff company. I do not agree that above scheme of payment of subsidy was applicable to those small scale industries which were granted financial facility for purchase of machine after July, 2009. It is correct that our company had availed loan facilities from the bank in the year 2008. Vol.
CS DJ 611372/2016 26 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 we were informed by the bank that we were eligible for the loan which was granted to us in 2008. I do not remember the date, however, the defendant bank vide its letter dated 22.07.2010 had informed the plaintiff company that their claim for grant of subsidy has been rejected by the defendant no. 3 on ground of the fact that it has availed loan facility in 2008 whereas payment of subsidy is applicable only to those small scale industries operating after July 2009...
Cross-examination on behalf of defendant No. 2 (MSME) Loan was taken by the plaintiff company for buying a new multilayer film plant along with its accessories in the year 2008. It is correct that it is fully automatic microprocessor controlled plastic extrusion machine to manufacture three layers film.
...It is wrong to suggest that the machinery purchased by the plaintiff was approved for subsidy in the year 2009 and the loan was taken in 2008 hence the plaintiff company was not entitled for subsidy. It is incorrect to suggest that we have not asked relief against Ministry and only against the defendant bank..."
43. The relevant extracts from the cross-examination of D1W1, conducted on behalf of plaintiff as well as on behalf of defendant No. 2 (MSME), on this aspect are reproduced hereinbelow;
"Cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff ...It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff was entitled to subsidy on the term loan as per subsidy scheme as the plaintiff has purchased the "Fully automatic micro processor cessor controlled plastic injection moulding/ extrusion machine" under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme for the year 2006. (Vol. The subsidy if any was to be provided by Ministry of CS DJ 611372/2016 27 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 MSME and not by the defendant bank.) It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff was entitled to get subsidy amount of Rs.962983/- from the defendant bank...
Cross-examination on behalf of the defendant No. 1 ...It is not in my knowledge that in the present case the responsibility is of PNB to ensure the eligibility for sanctioning of subsidy to the plaintiff..."
44. The relevant extracts from the cross-examination of D3W1, conducted on behalf of plaintiff, on this aspect are reproduced hereinbelow;
"It is correct that plaintiff had availed the term loan in the year 2008 and at that time, guidelines of 2006 were applicable for the purpose of entitlement of subsidy. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for deciding the eligibility of granting subsidy to any company. Whenever Primary Lending Institutions (PLI), in the present case defendant Nos. 1 and 2, recommend to the Ministry for about grant of subsidy to a company, on the recommendations of PLI, the steering committee of the Ministry use to release the fund (defendant No. 3 in the present case). ...It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff company is fully covered under the scheme of 2006 in respect of term loan for the purpose of grant of subsidy as plaintiff company involves whole kinds of process as mentioned in the said list. In the year 2006, Single layer film of the machine was covered under subsidy and the multi layer film was covered in the year 2009. It is wrong to suggest that the machine of multi layer film was covered in 2006 for grant of subsidy. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff was entitled for subsidy for the term loan as per first supplement of revising guidelines on credit link capital subsidy scheme dated 10.8.2006 "fully automatic micro processor controlled plastic injection moulding / extrusion machine". It is further wrong to CS DJ 611372/2016 28 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 suggest that plaintiff was entitled for grant of subsidy of Rs. 9,62,983/- in respect of machine purchased as per term loan. It is wrong to suggest that defendant No. 3 has falsely replied dated 1.11.2010 to the letter dated 26.6.2010 (Vol. It is written in the said reply dated 1.11.2010 that the plaintiff was not entitled for the subsidy as the multilayer purchased by the plaintiff was not covered under the scheme of 2006)."
45. A combined reading of the testimonies of PW-3, D1W1, and D3W1 reveals the following position;
(a) The plaintiff availed the Term Loan in the year 2008 (sanctioned on 23.06.2008), and at the relevant time, the guidelines dated 10.08.2006 under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) were applicable for determining eligibility for subsidy.
(b) The plaintiff purchased a Fully Automatic Micro Processor Controlled Plastic Injection Moulding/Extrusion Machine (multi-layer film).
(c) The plaintiff was informed by defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank) that it was eligible for subsidy under the 2006 guidelines in respect of the said machinery, and accordingly, it applied for the subsidy through defendant No. 1.
(d) The defendant No. 1, through its Regional Office, forwarded the plaintiff's claim to defendant No. 2 (MSME) for consideration.
(e) However, defendant No. 2 (MSME) rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the machinery in question was not covered under the CLCSS guidelines of 2006. It was stated that the said machinery was included only under the revised guidelines approved on 13.07.2009, which were not applicable to loans sanctioned in June 2008. This CS DJ 611372/2016 29 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 rejection was communicated by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1, which in turn informed the plaintiff.
(f) It was the responsibility of defendant No. 1 to ascertain the eligibility of the plaintiff company for subsidy in accordance with the prevailing guidelines and to forward its recommendation to defendant No. 2 (MSME). Upon such recommendation, the competent/steering committee of the concerned Ministry would consider the case and, if approved, release the subsidy amount for credit into the plaintiff's account.
(g) In other words, defendant No. 1 was not empowered to finally adjudicate/ determine the entitlement of the plaintiff to the subsidy. Its role was limited to verifying eligibility as per the applicable guidelines and forwarding/ recommending the claim to defendant No. 2 (MSME) for final decision for disbursal of subsidy.
46. In view of the above (as noted in para 45 supra), it can be observed that no liability for payment of subsidy can be fastened upon defendant No. 1 (Punjab National Bank), even if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing its entitlement to the unpaid subsidy amount. The responsibility to sanction, release, and disburse the subsidy amount lies with defendant No. 2 (MSME), which is the competent authority under the scheme.
47. As already noted, defendant No. 2 (MSME) rejected the plaintiff's claim for subsidy on the ground that the machinery purchased by the plaintiff was not covered under the CLCSS guidelines as revised in April 2006. It was contended that the said technology/machinery was brought within the scope of the scheme only pursuant to CS DJ 611372/2016 30 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 the 2nd Supplement to the CLCSS guidelines approved on 13.07.2009. Since the plaintiff's Term Loan had been sanctioned on 23.06.2008, i.e., prior to the inclusion of the said technology under the scheme, the plaintiff was held to be ineligible for subsidy.
48. Pertinently, defendant No. 2 (MSME) has failed to place on record the relevant CLCSS guidelines/booklets, nor has it got the same duly exhibited and proved in accordance with law. In the absence of such evidence, the stand taken by defendant No. 2 cannot be said to have been duly established or proved.
49. However, it is significant to note that the plaintiff, in the original plaint, claimed a sum of Rs. 10,75,331/- towards subsidy along with interest (comprising Rs. 9,62,983/- as principal subsidy and Rs. 1,12,348/- as interest @ 14% p.a. from April 2010 to January 2011) under paragraph 11(iv), only against defendant No. 1 and not against defendant No. 2. The plaintiff subsequently sought to amend paragraph 11(iv) to attribute joint and several liability upon both defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2; however, such amendment was disallowed by the learned predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023. The said order was not challenged and has attained finality. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, defendant No. 2 cannot be held liable for payment of the unpaid subsidy amount.
50. In view of the above, the plaintiff is held not entitled to any amount under head (iv), i.e., unpaid subsidy amount along with interest. Conclusion
51. From the foregoing discussion, this Court concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts under each head as follows;
CS DJ 611372/2016 31 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026
(i) Towards excess interest charged on Cash Credit limit along with interest:
Rs. 2,46,816/-.
(ii) Towards excess interest on Term Loan along with interest: Rs. 1,36,932/-.
(iii) Towards processing fees along with interest: Rs. 54,548/-.
(iv) Towards unpaid subsidy amount along with interest: Nil.
52. Hence, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff in terms of para 51 of this judgment supra.
ISSUE NO. 2(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so at what rate and for which period ? OPP
53. Onus to prove Issue No. 2 in the suit was on the plaintiff.
54. In view of finding given qua issue No. 1 in the suit, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover pendente lite and future interest from the defendant No. 1. In Central Bank of India V/s Ravindra; AIR 2001 SC 3095, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grant of pendente lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties.
55. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is granted pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
56. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
CS DJ 611372/2016 32 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026 RELIEF
57. As a net result of the aforesaid, this suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 4,38,296.00/- (Four Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Six Rupees Only) along with costs as well as pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
58. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on this 30th day of March, 2026. This Judgment consists of 33 number of signed pages. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.30 16:25:45 +0530 (Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi CS DJ 611372/2016 33 of 33 M/s Jupitor Polytex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Ban & Anr. Judgment dated 30.03.2026