Multiway Dealers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Punjan and Sind Bank and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Multiway Dealers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Punjan and Sind Bank and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with directions that the appellants may pursue their grievance against Punjab and Sind Bank in the competent Civil Court; if proceedings are filed within three months, the bar of limitation shall not apply and the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1968 as if pursuing mistaken judicial proceedings; connected applications disposed of; no order as to costs; cause-title correction in the order dated 18.08.2025 to be incorporated by the Department.

Issue for consideration

Whether the matters raised in the writ petition involve disputed questions of fact that must be decided by an appropriate trial on evidence, making adjudication by way of writ petition inappropriate. +3 more

Court's answer

A plain reading of the pleadings in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the Single Bench indicates several disputed questions of facts that are required to be decided by an appropriate trial on evidence.

Ratio / Principle

The appellants' allegation of fraud makes the matter civil in nature, requiring it to be decided after receiving effective oral and documentary evidence.

Key takeaways

The appellants/writ petitioners may approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter as expeditiously as possible to seek remedy of their grievances against the Punjab and Sind Bank.ratio¶12
If such proceedings are not filed within a period of three months from date, the bar of limitation shall not apply to such suit.ratio¶13
It shall be construed as if the appellant was pursuing mistaken judicial proceedings and shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1968.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (MAT 178 of 2025, with CAN 2 of 2025) against a Single Bench judgment and order dated 30th July 2024, disposed of on 10.09.2025 by a bench comprising Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ. The writ petition had alleged that Punjab and Sind Bank refused to encash and return the appellants' deposit accounts after charging and adjusting them towards the outstanding dues of a third party, and counsel contended the underlying resolutions were ex facie forged, fake and fictitious; a complaint to the Reserve Bank of India referred to the Banking Ombudsman produced no steps. Finding several disputed questions of fact requiring trial on evidence, and that the fraud allegation rendered the matter civil in nature requiring effective oral and documentary evidence, the Court held the writ forum unsuitable and directed the appellants to seek remedy in the Civil Court having jurisdiction; if proceedings are instituted within three months, the limitation bar shall not apply, the appellants being construed as pursuing mistaken judicial proceedings entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1968 (as printed). Appeal and connected applications disposed of; no order as to costs; cause title of the order dated 18.08.2025 corrected to 'Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.'

10.09.2025 Court No.13 Item No.17 sp

MAT 178 of 2025 With

CAN 2 of 2025

Multiway Dealers Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Mr. Mainak Bose, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Ms. Rishika Goyal, Ms. Rishika Goya, Ms. Sonia Das. … For the Appellants. Mr. Swapan Kr. Sahoo, Ms. Mahuya Ghosh, Mr. Sanjib Ghosh, … for the Punjab and Sind Bank. Ms. Suchishmita Ghosh … For the Respondent No.3. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Anup Dasgupta. … For the Union of India.

The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30^th July, 2024 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

In the writ petition it is alleged that the Punjab and Sind Bank has refused to encash and return deposit accounts of the appellants on the ground that the same were initially charged and subsequently encashed and adjusted towards the outstanding dues of a third party.

2

The appellants/writ petitioners approached the Reserve Bank of India with a complaint which was referred to the Banking Ombudsman but the Ombudsman did not take any steps in the matter.

Mr. Mainak Bose, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants would argue that the resolution based on which the bank alleges that the deposit accounts were charged a security for a loan given to a third party are ex facie forged, fake and fictitious.

A plain reading of the pleadings in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the Single Bench indicate that there are several disputed questions of facts that are required to be decided by an appropriate trial on evidence. The appellants in essence having alleged fraud, makes the matter all the more civil in nature that requires to be decided after receiving effective oral and documentary evidence.

In the backdrop of the above, this Court is of the view that the appellants/writ petitioners may approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter as expeditiously as possible to seek remedy of their grievances against the Punjab and Sind Bank.

It is made clear that if such proceedings are not filed within a period of three months from date, the bar of limitation shall not apply to such suit. It shall be

3

construed as if the appellant was pursuing mistaken judicial proceedings shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1968.

With the aforesaid observations, MAT 178 of 2025 shall stand disposed of.

Consequently, all connected applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

In the order dated 18.08.2025, the cause title is corrected to indicate the name of the respondents ‘Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.’

Let the aforesaid correction be incorporated in the order dated 18.08.2025.

The other parts of the said order shall remain unaltered.

The Department is directed to make necessary corrections.

All the concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

4