Bombay High Court
Rabo Bank vs State Bank Of India on 11 February, 2021
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
5-IAL3852-2021INCOMSS1-2001+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 3852 OF 2021
IN
COMM SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1 OF 2001
RABO Bank ...Applicant
In the matter between
RABO Bank ...Plaintiff
Versus
State of Bank of India ...Defendant
WITH
COMM SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1 OF 2001
Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Pratiksha
Avhad, i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Umesh Shetty, a/w Sharila D'souza, Gopalkrishna Nayak
and Harjotsing, i/b Flavia Legal, for the defendant.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 11th FEBRUARY, 2021
PC:-
1. This application is preferred by the plaintiff to amend the
cause-title of the plaint so as to change the address of the
defendant - Bank from "Scope Complex 7, Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi", to local Head Offce at "Synergy, B.K.C.
Mumbai-400 051" and Corporate Centre at "State Bank Bhavan,
V. S.
Parekar Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021".
Digitally signed
by V. S. Parekar
Date: 2021.02.15
17:19:32 +0530
1/5
5-IAL3852-2021INCOMSS1-2001+.DOC
2. The plaintiff had initially instituted the suit against the
State Bank of Hyderabad. The cause-title stated that the
defendant carries on business at Mumbai through its various
branches including its zonal offce at Rachna Sansad, 1st Floor,
278 S.G Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
3. The evidence in the suit was closed on 7th October, 2016
and the matter came to be listed for argument on 6 th December,
2016.
4. It is the claim of the plaintiff that, after the evidence was
closed and the suit came to be posted for fnal hearing, a
communication was addressed on behalf of the defendant (State
Bank of Hyderabad) to the Counsel for the plaintiff to the effect
that the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad was acquired by
State Bank of India in accordance with the GSR(E) with effect
from 1st April, 2017, and the Counsel for the plaintiff was
advised to take out an appropriate application to bring on
record State Bank of India as party defendant. Consequently,
draft amendment was tendered before the Court on 30 th
October, 2017, and State Bank of India came to be substituted in
place of State Bank of Hyderabad, with the aforesaid New Delhi
address.
2/5
5-IAL3852-2021INCOMSS1-2001+.DOC
5. The applicant avers that the Delhi address came to be
inadvertently mentioned as another proceedings between Rabo
Bank, Netherland and State Bank of Hyderabad (original
defendant) was pending before the District Court at Saket and,
thus, there was an inadvertent mistake. The plaintiff be thus
permitted to amend the cause-title of the plaint, as proposed in
the Schedule.
6. The defendant has resisted the application by fling an
affdavit-in-reply. The application is stated to be misconceived.
The reason assigned for seeking amendment in the cause-title of
the plaint is not worthy of acceptance. In any event, either the
local Head Offce or the Corporate Offce, at Mumbai of the
defendant has no supervisory or administrative control over the
Burrabazar Branch of the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad,
with which the plaintiff had the suit transactions. The
defendant thus prayed for rejection of the application.
7. Heard Mr. Narichania, the learned Senior Counsel, for the
plaintiff/applicant and Mr. Shetty, the learned Counsel for the
defendant/respondent.
8. Indubitably, the State Bank of Hyderabad was initially
impleaded as a party defendant with an assertion that its head
3/5
5-IAL3852-2021INCOMSS1-2001+.DOC
offce was at Gun Foundry, Hyderabad and zonal offce at
Rachna Sansad, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. After the State Bank of
Hyderabad, the then Associate Bank of the State Bank of India,
came to be acquired by the latter, the amendment was
necessitated. It is nobody's case that the offce of the State
Bank of India at Scope Complex, 7 Institutional Area, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi, has any concern with the transactions in
question. Since, the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court
to entertain, try and dispose of this suit is already framed, by
order dated 9th February, 2016, and the parties have led
evidence thereon, the Court is required to record a fnding on
the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The submission on behalf
of the defendant that the Local Head Offce and Corporate Offce
of the State Bank of India do not exercise any control over the
branch with which the plaintiff had transactions and,
consequently, their presence within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of this Court does not empower this Court to
entertain, try and decide the suit is a matter of substance and
can be adjudicated at the fnal disposal of the suit.
9. The fnal hearing of the suit is also at a fag end. Thus, at
this stage, there does not seem to be any justifable reason to
reject the prayer for carrying out the amendment so as to
4/5
5-IAL3852-2021INCOMSS1-2001+.DOC
correct the address of the defendant in the cause-title,
especially, in view of the fact that initially State Bank of
Hyderabad (original defendant) was sought to be sued with the
assertion that it has its zonal offce within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the basic premise of the
plaintiff's claim qua the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
does not change.
10. For this forgoing reasons, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following order:
: ORDER :
(i) The application stands allowed.
(ii) The plaintiff shall carry out the necessary amendment forthwith and copy of the amended plaint be served on the defendant.
(iii) Re-verifcation dispensed with.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5