Commercial dispute classification upheld for a banking FDR claim, while unnecessary parties were deleted from the suit.

A banking dispute arising from fixed deposit receipts was treated as a commercial dispute because the plaint disclosed a commercial banking arrangement within Section 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; the defendant's plea of adjustment against an alleged demand loan did not change that character. Objection to mis-joinder was addressed by permitting deletion of defendant Nos. 2 to 6, as they were conceded not to be necessary or proper parties, and the party title was directed to be corrected accordingly. The suit therefore remained maintainable as a commercial suit and proceeded against the remaining parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dispute fell within the ambit of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (ii) Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

Issue (i): Whether the dispute fell within the ambit of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Analysis: The plaint disclosed a banking transaction involving opening of fixed deposit receipts and the dispute arose out of the alleged non-payment of the FDR amount. The nature of the transaction, as pleaded, was that of a commercial banking arrangement falling within the statutory definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defence that the amount stood adjusted against an alleged demand loan did not alter the commercial character of the dispute.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the defendants and in favour of treating the suit as a commercial suit.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

Analysis: The objection to mis-joinder was met by the plaintiff's concession that defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were neither necessary nor proper parties. On that basis, their deletion from the array of parties was permitted and the description of defendant No. 1 was directed to be corrected.

Conclusion: The issue was disposed of by allowing deletion of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and amendment of the party title accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The suit was held to be maintainable as a commercial dispute, while the unnecessary parties were deleted from the proceedings and the matter was directed to proceed on the remaining issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A banking transaction involving fixed deposit receipts constitutes a commercial dispute where the plaint discloses a commercial banking arrangement and the statutory character of the dispute is not displaced by the defendant's plea of adjustment or set-off.

---