Dismissed¶66

Smt Mamatajbegum W/O. Mahammadali Badami v. the Bank of Maharashtra

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2025COMAP/100013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 10 CPC stay of suit; lis pendens; suit versus criminal proceeding; identity of matter in issue; commercial money-recovery suit; Bank of Maharashtra Gadag Branch; private complaints against Bank Manager; abuse of process; costs ₹5,000; Commercial Courts Act 2015 S.13(1A); Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; Section 151 CPC; National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Supreme Court) relied on; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; COMAP No. 100013 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB; decided 04.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The issues involved in the criminal proceeding are distinct from the issue in the money-recovery suit; the Trial Court rightly recorded this finding and rejected the stay application, and the finding suffers from no error or perversity calling for interference. ¶58

Smt Mamatajbegum W/O. Mahammadali Badami Vs the Bank of Maharashtra — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 10 CPC applies to stay the suit where the purportedly parallel proceeding is a criminal case/private complaint rather than a previously instituted suit — i.e., whether the matter in issue in the suit is directly and substantially in issue in that proceeding. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

Section 10 CPC speaks of stay as between two suits; on the facts there are no two suits on the same issue — the pending criminal case is distinct from the suit — so the ingredients of Section 10 CPC are absent and the provision does not apply.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

¶58

Key takeaways

The filing of the stay application before the Trial Court and the subsequent appeal constitute an abuse of process of law; accordingly the appeal deserved to be rejected with costs.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Commercial Appeal (COMAP No. 100013 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 04.08.2025) filed under S.13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 28.04.2025 of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (Commercial Court) in Com.O.S.No.28/2023 (Bank of Maharashtra v. Mamatajbegum and another, money-recovery suit), rejecting the defendants' application under Sections 10 and 151 CPC for stay of the suit on the ground of pending private complaints/criminal cases against the Bank's Manager. Held (per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.): Section 10 CPC operates only between two suits in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue; the criminal proceeding is distinct from the suit and there are no two suits on the same issue, so the ingredients of Section 10 CPC are absent; relying on the Supreme Court's enunciation in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, the Trial Court's finding that the issues are distinct was free of error or perversity; the application and the appeal amounted to abuse of process of law. Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/- payable by the appellants to the Bank.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 100013 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. MAMATAJBEGUM

¶9

W/O. MAHAMMADALI BADAMI, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GANGIMADI ROAD, TAJNAGAR, GADAG-582101.

¶10

2. MOHAMMED YUSUF

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶12

S/O. FAKRUSAB BADAMI, ACTUAL NAME: MOHAMMED YUSUF S/O. MOHAMMEDALI BADAMI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GANGIMADI ROAD, TAJ NAGAR, GADAG-582101.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY MR. LADASAB M. AKKI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, A NATIONALISED BANK,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

GADAG BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI S. G. NARAYANRAO, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, (BANK OF MAHARASHTRA), R/O. NEAR TIPPU SULTAN CIRCLE, HUBBALLI ROAD, GADAG-582101.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SHRI PRASHANTH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN COM.O.S. NO.28/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-‘A’ AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION U/S.10 AND 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN COM.O.S. NO.28/2023 DATED 27.03.2025 BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT SESSION JUDGE, GADAG (COM.COURT) VIDE ANNEXURE-‘B’ AND ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

¶32

This appeal is filed seeking following prayer:

¶33

“a) Set aside the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (Commercial Court) in Com. O.S.No.28/2023, vide Annexure-‘A’.

¶34

b) Allow the application u/s.10 and 151 of C.P.C., filed by the defendant in Com.O.S.No.28/2023 dated 27.03.2025 before the Addl. District Session Judge, Gadag (Com. Court) vide Annexure-‘B’.”

¶35

Sri Ladasab M.Akki, learned counsel appearing for

¶36

appellants submits that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of money against the appellants. In the said suit, the appellants filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to stay the further proceedings of the suit on

¶37

the ground that the respondent filed private complaints which are referred in the application and the issue involved in the suit is directly an issue involved in the criminal cases. Hence, proceedings in the suit are required to be stayed. It is submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

contentions and rejected the application under the impugned order which require to be interfered in this appeal.

¶42

Sri Prashanth Hosamani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has recorded detailed reasons at Para 8 of the impugned order and rejected the application for stay of suit filed by the petitioners/appellants which does not call for any interference.

¶43

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶44

The respondent/Bank filed commercial O.S.No.28/2023 against the appellants herein for recovery of money. In the said suit, the petitioners/appellants filed an application under Section 10 of CPC seeking to stay the proceedings in the suit on the ground that there are criminal cases pending against the Manager of the Bank and the issue involved in the criminal case is an issue in the suit. The trial

¶45

Court under the impugned order recorded the finding that the issue involved in the criminal case and the suit are different

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

and the suit is against the petitioners who have borrowed the loan from the respondent/Bank. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the suit.

¶50

Section 10 of the CPC provides for stay of proceedings with the trial of any suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit between the same parties. In the case on hand, the subject matter in the suit is for recovery of money and the criminal case pending is a distinct to the issue involved in the suit and in Section 10 of the CPC speaks about stay of suit and the case on hand there are no two suits on the same issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

¶51

MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES , referred supra.

¶52

"8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical."

¶57

Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by

¶58

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the issues involved in the suits is distinct from the criminal proceeding and has rejected the application. We do not find any perversity or error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for interference in this appeal. Section 10 of C.P.C., speaks about two suits between the same parties. However in a case on

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9652-DB COMAP No. 100013 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

hand, the ingredients of Section 10 of C.P.C., are absent. The filing of an application by the petitioner before the Trial Court and later filing of this appeal is an abuse of process of law. Hence, appeal required to be rejected with costs.

¶63