ARGHA CHATTERJEE vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 272/2025, CM APPL. 28178/2025 & CM APPL. 32007/2025 ARGHA CHATTERJEE .....Appellant Through: Ms. Ritika Mitra, Adv. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jeewan Prakash Gupta, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 12.02.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. CS (COMM) 517/2020, instituted by Respondent 1, the State Bank of India, against the appellant and Respondent 2 for ₹17,91,443/-, came to be decreed by the learned Commercial Court by judgment and decree dated 15 April 2023. The judgment and decree were passed after proceeding against the appellant, who was Defendant 1, ex parte, noting the fact that the appellant had been served by email as well as WhatsApp and had failed to enter appearance on 25 November 2020. 2. The appellant preferred an application before the learned Commercial Court under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT RFA(COMM) 272/2025 Page 1 of 11 KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 19:30:39 Procedure, 19081, for setting aside the aforenoted ex parte judgment and decree. It was specifically contended, by the appellant, in the said application, that the appellant had never been served with summons in the suit and was, therefore, unaware of the proceedings therein. 3. The application came to be dismissed by the learned Commercial Court by order dated 29 October 2024. We deem it appropriate to reproduce paras 2 and 7 of the said order, thus: “2. Ms. Ritika Mitra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 namely Argha Chatterjee has submitted that defendant no. I was never served any summon of the suit and submitted that the predecessor of this court had wrongly relied upo