Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs M/S. Jmd Infocomm on 16 April, 2024
DLST010043972022
Presented on : 18.05.2022
Registered on : 26.05.2022
Decided on : 16.04.2024
Duration : 1 years, 10 months
& 29 days
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT) (DIGITAL-04),
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH
CS (Comm) No. 325/2022
In the matter of:
UNION BANK OF INDIA (Earlier known as
Corporation Bank), a body corporate constituted
under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 having its
Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan
Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021,
carrying on banking business all over India and
having branches all over India, inter alia one of
its Branches at S-24, Green Park Extension,
South West Delhi, New Delhi-110016. ............Plaintiff
Vs.
M/S JMD INFOCOMM
Proprietor Mrs, Vibha Shukla
A-12, Sultanpur Extension,
Near Life Line Medicos,
New Delhi-110030. .........Defendant
Date of institution : 26.05.2022
Date on which argument was concluded : 06.04.2024
Date of pronouncement of the order : 16.04.2024
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 1 of 18
Digitally signed
SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:51:21 +0530
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.
4,87,607.11/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12.35 %
per annum inclusive of penal interest @ 2% p.a. compounded with
monthly rests alongwith cost.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER PLAINT ARE AS UNDER:
2. The version of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff bank (erstwhile Corporation Bank) is a Nationalised Bank and is a Body corporate constituted under Provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The present suit was filed through Sh. Santosh Kumar, Assistant General Manager of the plaintiff bank, who was authorized by the plaintiff bank. During course of trial, in place of Sh. Santosh Kumar, Sh. Shiva Chandra Pal, was substituted as AR for the Plaintiff Bank vide order dated 28.08.2023. Further, during course of trial, in place of previous AR, Sh. Rajeev Kumar, was substituted as AR for the Plaintiff Bank vide order dated 06.04.2024, who was authorized by the plaintiff bank through GPA dated 04.04.2024.
3. It is further stated that pursuant to Gazette Notification No. GSR 155 (E) dated 04.03.2020, Corporation Bank was amalgamated with Union Bank of India.
4. It is stated that in the year 2014, the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for availing Credit Facility under Corp. Laghu Udyami Credit Card Scheme (CLUCC) for running its business in the sum of Rs. 5,40,000/-, which was sanctioned to the defendant CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.04.16 SINGH 15:51:30 +0530 on 27.03.2014 vide Loan Account No. 5603 7107 1190 213. It is further stated that for the said Loan, defendant executed various documents (like Demand Promissory Note; Take Delivery Letter to D.P.N.; request for overdraft facilities / cash credit limit; common Deed of Hypothecation; Letter of Undertaking and Letter of Consent for disclosure of Information dated 27.03.2014) in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the loan facility. It is further stated that defendant undertook to make the repayment of loan amount with interest @ 12.35% p.a. (base rate +2.10%) and penal interest @ 2% p.a. in case of any default in payment of any installment.
5. It is further stated that defendant was highly irregular in repayment of loan amount. It is further stated that plaintiff bank made several requests and reminders to the defendant, to liquidate its liability in respect of the aforesaid loan, but defendant failed to liquidate its liability. It is further stated that on 05.01.2019, the defendant acknowledged its liability in writing and executed Acknowledgement of Debt and Security.
6. It is further alleged that plaintiff bank maintains its books of account correctly and according to that books of account, the liability of the defendant as on the date of filing of this suit is of Rs. 4,87,607.11/- inclusive of costs, charges and interest debited upto 31.12.2020.
7. It is also averred that the dispute between the parties falls under the commercial dispute as per Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:51:40 +0530
8. It is further stated that the amount was not paid by the defendant despite repeated reminders and hence, the plaintiff bank invoked Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act by approaching South District Legal Services Authority on 23.12.2021, but the defendant did not appear in Pre Institution Mediation proceedings and hence, a Non-Starter Report was issued by South District Legal Services Authority on 24.02.2022, where-after, the present Suit was filed by the plaintiff on 26.05.2022 for recovery of Rs. 4,87,607.11/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12.35 % per annum inclusive of penal interest @ 2% p.a. compounded with monthly rests alongwith cost.
DEFENDANT IS EX-PARTE:-
9. The defendant could not be served through ordinary means and hence was permitted to be served through substituted means vide order dated 11.10.2023. Accordingly, the defendant was served through publication in the newspapers "The Statesman" and "Veer Arjun" on 30.09.2023. The defendant, however, did not appear, nor any Written Statement was filed within the statutory period of 120 days from the date of service and hence, right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed vide order dated 02.02.2024 and the matter was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the defendant.
ISSUES
10. The following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 28.02.2024 :-
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:51:49 +0530
1. Whether this Court has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPP
2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP
3. Whether the suit has been properly valued? OPP
4. Whether proper Court Fees has been paid by the Plaintiff ? OPP
5. Whether the Plaintiff has exhausted the statutory remedy u/s 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP
6. Whether the dispute is a Commercial dispute u/s 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP
7. Whether the prayer of the Plaintiff is as per the specified value u/s 12 of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed? OPP
9. Relief, if any.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 5 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:51:55 +0530
11. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff bank has led its evidence wherein Sh. Rajeev Kumar, AR of the plaintiff bank was examined and he reiterated the contents of plaint in his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibit
1. Copy of Authority Letter (GPA) dated Mark A
09.05.2013
2. Copy of Authority Letter dated Ex. PW1/2
04.04.2024 (OSR)
3. Loan Application Ex. PW1/3
4. Demand Promissory Note Ex. PW1/4
5. Take Delivery Letter to D.P.N. Ex. PW1/5
6. Overdraft Facility / Cash Credit Limit Ex. PW1/6
7. Common Deed of Hypothecation of Ex. PW1/7
movables / assets / debts
8. Letter of Undertaking / Declaration Ex. PW1/8
from the borrower
9. Letter of Consent for disclosure of Ex. PW1/9
information / data relating to credit facilities availed dated 27.03.2014
10. Copy of Acknowledgement of debt / Ex. PW1/10 liability by the borrower
11. Statement of Account alongwith Ex. PW1/11 certificate under Banker's Books of Evidence Act
12. Non-Starter Report dated 24.02.2022 Ex. PW1/12
12. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff bank and have perused the records of the case.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 6 of 18 SANJEEV Digitally signed
by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:52:02 +0530
13. Issue No. 1
Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPP 13.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
13.2 The provisions of Section 3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that :-
Section 3: Constitution of Commercial Courts:
3. (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.] 3[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.] CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.04.16 SINGH 15:52:09 +0530 13.3 As per plaintiff, the loan, documents were executed at the branch office of the plaintiff bank at Green Park Branch, New Delhi and all transactions were also carried out at the said branch. The defendant is resident of Sultanpur Extension, New Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action thus arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this plaint.
13.4 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.14. Issue No. 2
Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 14.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
14.2 The cause of action for filing of present suit arose on 27.03.2014 when the plaintiff bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 5,40,000/- to the defendant. It is further stated that cause of action further arose on 27.03.2014 when the defendant executed loan and security documents. It is further stated that cause of action further arose on 05.01.2019 when the defendant acknowledged its liability in writing and executed acknowledgement of debt and security. The limitation, in normal course would have expired on 04.01.2022. However, before that, the Covid-19 struck. By virtue of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 10.01.2022 reported in 2022 (3) SCC 117, the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood excluded and hence, the present suit having being filed on 26.05.2022 would be within the period of limitation. Relevant part of the Order is CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.04.16 SINGH 15:52:16 +0530 reproduced below :-
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.04.16 SINGH 15:52:23 +0530 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
14.3 The present suit was filed on 26.05.2022 and excluding the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the Suit is within the limitation period of 03 years from the date of acknowledgment of debt (Ex. PW1/10) by the defendant.
14.4 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
15. Issue No. 3Whether the suit has been properly valued? OPP 15.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
15.2 The Suit has been valued at Rs. 4,87,607.11/- which is also the amount claimed by the Plaintiff in 'Prayer Clause' in this case. Thus, the suit has thus been properly valued.
15.3 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
16. Issue No. 4Whether proper Court Fees has been paid by the Plaintiff ? OPP 16.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:52:30 +0530
16.2 The Suit has been valued at Rs. 4,87,607.11/- and an
advelorem Court Fee of Rs. 7,127/- has been paid by the Plaintiff by way of e-court fee on 06.05.2022.
16.3 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
17. Issue No. 5Whether the Plaintiff has exhausted the statutory remedy u/s 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP 17.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
17.2 The plaintiff invoked Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act by approaching South District Legal Services Authority on 23.12.2021 and a Non-Starter Report (Ex. PW1/12) was issued by South District Legal Services Authority on 24.02.2022. The statutory remedy u/s 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act has thus been exhausted by the Plaintiff before approaching this Court for recovery of its dues.
17.3 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
18. Issue No. 6Whether the dispute is a Commercial dispute u/s 2 (1)
(c) of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP 18.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:52:38 +0530
18.2 At the very Outset, I may observe that the provisions of
Section 2 (1) (c) (i) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are very clear which reads as under:
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x)management and consultancy
agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment
agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements; (xvi) technology development agreements;CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 12 of 18 Digitally signed
SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:52:47 +0530
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;
(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and re-insurance; (xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
18.3 The provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as above are very much clear. It is important to notice that the crucial expres such as sion that connects the classes of persons i.e. merchants, bankers, financiers and traders to the expression mercantile documents are the words "such as".
18.4 In Good year India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (AIR 1999 SC 1558), the words "Such as" were construed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to mean that the words following it were to be read as illustrative of the matter and not as limitations. Consequently, it would be difficult to say that the words "mercantile documents" which follow the words "Such as" in Section 2(1)(c) are the only classes falling within the net of this definition. In other words, it would appear that the expression "such as those relating to mercantile documents" cannot be construed as words of limitation while construing this definition.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:52:54 +0530
18.5 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Ladymoon Towers
Private Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited (I.A No. G.A 4 of 2021 in C.S 99 of 2020 order dated 13.08.2021) after setting out the dictionary meanings of the expressions "merchants"
"bankers" "traders" and "financiers" the learned judge proceeded to observe as under:
"The definition section of the 2015 Act only contemplates a "commercial dispute" and not any other form of dispute where the basis of disagreement between the parties has a non- commercial cause. The graduation of disputes in Section 2(1)(c) taking into account all possible forms of agreements from which a "commercial dispute" may arise, makes it clear that the framers of the statute gave emphasis on the commercial flavour of the transaction as opposed to agreements entered into between parties without a commercial purpose. The qualification of the person being a Merchant, Banker, Trader or Financier imparts an unimpeachable commercial flavour to the transaction and the resulting dispute. The insolvency and Bankruptcy Cod, 2016, for example, defines a dispute from a broader perspective as any suit or arbitration proceedings relating to an existing debt - Section 5(6)(a). The commercial purpose would generally mean a transaction by which a person's commercial or economic interests may be advanced and would result in an economic benefit to that person. It would not include an agreement where profit-making is an incidental outcome of the transaction or may happen by accident. Although, a "hand loan", for example, is given by a person or entity to another with the expected outcome of the principal sum being returned with interest, the essential commercial flavour in such a loan may be lost by reason of the informal terms CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 14 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.04.16 SINGH 15:53:00 +0530 under which the money is lent and advanced and the consequent uncertainty which may result therefrom."
18.6 The dispute is thus arising out of ordinary Banking Transactions and hence, is a 'Commercial Dispute' within the meaning of the said word under the Commercial Courts Act.
18.7 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
19. Issue No. 7Whether the prayer of the Plaintiff is as per the specified value u/s 12 of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP.
19.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
19.2 Section 12 (1) (a) of the Commercial Courts Act, provides that specified value of a subject matter of Commercial Dispute for recovery of money shall be computed on the basis of amount to be recovered inclusive of interest upto the date of filing of the Suit.
19.3 Second Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Commercial Courts Act, provides that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Court shall not be less than Rs. 3 Lakhs and shall not be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts.
19.4 In the present case, the amount sought to be recovered is Rs. 4,87,607.11/- which consists of principal amount and interest and hence, will be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, being above Rs. 3 Lakhs and less than Rs. 2 Crores.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:53:07 +0530
19.5 This issue is thus accordingly decided in favour of the
plaintiff.
20. Issue No. 8
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed? OPP 20.1 The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff bank.
20.2 Ex. PW1/2 is the Authority Letter dated 04.04.2024; Ex. PW1/3 is the Loan Application; Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 are various documents executed / submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank for the purpose of taking the Loan from the plaintiff bank.
20.3 Ex. PW1/10 is the Copy of Acknowledgement of Debit / Liability by the defendant; Ex. PW1/11 is the Statement of Account alongwith certificate under Banker's Books of Evidence Act. Ex. PW1/12 is the Non-Starter Report dated 24.02.2022.
20.4 Statement of Account Ex. PW1/11 reflects that the defendant was under a liability to pay Rs. 4,87,607.11/- towards Loan Account No. 5603 7107 1190 213.
20.5 PW-1, by way of his unrebutted testimony has been able to prove that the defendant failed and neglected to clear the outstanding dues against the loan facility issued to him by the plaintiff bank as contended in the plaint, a sum of Rs. 4,87,607.11/-, was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff bank, which the defendant failed to pay.
CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 16 of 18 Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:53:16 +0530
20.6 This Court has no reason to disbelieve the said documents.
20.7 The Plaintiff has thus proved that it had extended a Loan of
Rs. 5,40,000/- to the defendant which has not been repaid by the them as is clear from the Statement of Account. There have been defaults on the part of the defendant to repay the Loan Amount.
20.8 So far as the interest component is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12.35% per annum compounded with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest which is in my considered opinion is excessive and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of principal amount of Rs. 4,87,607.11/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization from the defendant.
20.9 The plaintiff is thus, entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 4,87,607.11/- from the defendant with interest @ 9% p.a. Costs of the suit is also awarded.
21. Issue No 9 Relief 21.1 In view of the above, I hereby pass:-
An ex-parte money decree in the sum of Rs. 4,87,607.11/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount alongwith costs of the suit.CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed
SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2024.04.16
SINGH 15:53:24 +0530
21.2 The suit is accordingly decreed with cost.
21.3 Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to be Record Room.Digitally signed
SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: Announced in open Court SINGH 2024.04.16 on 16.04.2024 15:53:32 +0530 (SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court) (Digital-04) South,Saket,ND/16.04.2024 CS (Comm) No. 325/22 Union Bank of India vs. M/s JMD Infocomm Page 18 of 18