Bangalore District Court Multiple Special Steel Pvt Ltd vs Hdfc Bank on 21 June, 2025 IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH90) Present: Sri.K.M.Rajendra Kumar, LLM, M.Phil, LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2025 Com.O.S.No.1367/2023 PLAINTIFF : Multiple Special Steel Pvt., Ltd., Sy.No.30/11, Ramanath Complex, Shatipura Main Road, Huskur Post, Bengaluru560 099, Represented by its Accounts Manager Suresh Kumar.S.A. S/o S.T.Adinarayana Email ID: [email protected] [email protected], Mobile: 9448832647 (By M.Sivappa Associates, Advocate) Vs DEFENDANTS : 01. HDFC Bank, Head Office, Nrupatunga Road, Begnaluru560 001, Rep by Relationship Manager. 02. HDFC Bank, Electronic City, /2/ Com.O.S.1367/2023 Bengaluru, Karnataka Rep by The Branch Manager, Bengaluru560 100, (Exparte) Date of Institution of suit : 29.11.2023 Nature of suit : Money Suit (suit on pronote, suit for declaration and possession suit for injunction, etc.,) Date of commencement : 30.05.2024 of recording of evidence Date of judgment : 22.03.2025 Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s 01 04 23 (K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH90) JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this suit praying the Court to pass a Judgment and Decree directing the defendants to refund a sum of ₹.19,28,350/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Only) along with interest @ 21% p.a. and for costs and for further reliefs in the interest of justice and equity. /3/ Com.O.S.1367/2023 The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under: 02. That, the plaintiff is a MSME Company with Uddyam Registration into the business of trading in imported tooling grade alloy steel and aluminum having Head Office at Bengaluru and branches at Coimbatore, Pune and Noida. That, the initially the plaintiff opted for CITI bank for all its Banking Transactions, however on being approached with attractive terms by the defendant No.2 for opening a Cash Credit Account, the same was accepted. That, accordingly, a sanction letter dated 26.08.2020 was released by defendant No.2 for a total limit of ₹.20.40 Crores which included a Cash Credit Limit of 17.50 Crores and a term loan of ₹.2.93 Crores with 8% interest which meant a complete takeover of plaintiff's Accounts including the one with CITI Bank. That, however, on refusal by CITI Bank to part with plaintiff's account, it was agreed both CITI and defendant No.2 would handle plaintiff's account under Paripasu Agreement. That, subsequently, CITI Bank backed out from the arrangement as they could not handle Paripasu Agreement and as such all bank Transactions continued with defendant No.2 alone. That, subsequently, a revised Sanction Letter dated /4/ Com.O.S.1367/2023 26.11.2020 was issued by the defendants revising the Limit to 12 Crore restricted to Cash Credit. 03. That, the defendant No.2 for the reasons best known to them charged 10% interest instead of agreed interest of 8% and have collected ₹.24,18,142/ in excess towards the same. That, on being enquired, came up with a new theory that additional 2% charged till April 2022 was penalty for delaying Mortgaging of plaintiff's properties. That, unconvinced by the reply plaintiff persisted to refund the excess charged, though initially no convincing reply was given by the defendants except orally saying the anomaly would be rectified as soon as mortgage and paripasu process gets completed and refund of excess interest collected would be made finally only ₹.14,35,601/ was refunded and another ₹.9,82,540/ is yet to be refunded. 04. It is made clear that documents were already with CITI Bank even before Plaintiff started banking with Defendant No.2 as such none of Plaintiff's actions con