$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010794732024 + FAO 356/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Appellant Through: Mr.Ajay Shanker, Advocate versus UCO BANK AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.I.S. Chauhan and Ms.Nisha Chauhan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. While assailing the impugned order dated 14.08.2024, whereby the plaint was directed to be returned for filing before the Commercial Court, the only contention raised in the present appeal is that the underlying transaction was not commercial in nature and, therefore, the Trial Court erred in treating it as a commercial dispute. The plaint has been filed for recovery of Rs.5,38,989. The relevant averments in the plaint read as under:- “5. That Defendant No. 4 i.e. Sh.Ashwin Kumar Vaghela that the account holder of the plaintiff Bank’s having account No.0002000100678608 being maintained at Branch office Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan and is a Performa party in this suit. 6. That the Defendant No.2 presented a truncated a truncated image of cheque bearing no. 372398 dated 21.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- through Cheque Truncation System (CTS ) and on the basis of the truncated image, the same was encashed and credited in the account of Defendant No.3 by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:41:56 Debiting the account of Defendant No. 4 namely Sh. Ashwin Kumar Vaghela account holder of branch office Abu Road, Sirohi (Rajasthan). 7. That on 29.09.2017 Defendant No. 4 namely Mr.Ashwin Kumar Vaghela made a complaint to the branch office of plaintiff bank, Abu Road, Sirohi (Rajasthan) that cheque bearing no. 372398 dated 21.09.2017 had been wrongly debited from his account whereas original cheque was lying with him and also informed that the said cheque was never issued in favour of Defendant No. 3 and also raised for claim for unauthorized debit from his account. 8. That subsequently, Plaintiff was informed by manager BO: Abu Road, Sirohi (Rajasthan) about the. complaint that their above mentioned account had been debited unauthorisedly and they had not issued any cheque in favour of defendant no. 3 namely Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and Original unpaid Cheque is in the custody of Defendant No. 4. That Defendant No. 4 served a legal Notice to Branch office of plaintiff Bank through his counsel and claimed for debited amount. 9. That the matter was immediately taken up with the Defendant No. 1 and 2 vide letters dated 29.09.2017 and a complaint was also lodged for an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- wherein refund of amount was also requested. That the Plaintiff further asked the Defendant Bank for the Original Cheque, requested to Freeze the account of Defendant No.3, and also asked for date of opening of account, KYC compliance of the account of Defendant No.3 and also the CCTV footage available in the defendant bank. That Defendant No. 1 and 2 have duly acknowledged letters of plaintiff bank and replied vide reply dated 28.11.2017, but failed to reimburse / refund the above said amount and also failed to provide the details. The copy of letters are annexed for the refusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 2. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff, being the Punjab This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:41:56 National Bank, has sought the following prayers:- “(a) To pass final order against the defendant No. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.5,38,989 (Rs. Five Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine Only ) with pendentelite and future interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till its realisation. (b) Award the cost of the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff bank and against the defendants No. 1 to 3.” 3. The impugned order records that the underlying transaction constitutes a commercial dispute, and in light of the decision in “Amba La/ Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd Vs K S Intraspace LLP1”, has directed that the plaint be returned under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to be filed afresh before the appropriate Commercial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the underlying dispute is not commercial, however, is not able to canvass how the underlying transaction between the two banks is not covered under the provisions of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Even though the underlying transaction is between the two private parties however, the suit has been preferred by one bank against the other in respect of a banking transaction. No other contentions having been raised, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 1 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:41:56 na This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:41:56