CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 20

th

November, 2025

Judgment pronounced on: 6

th

January, 2026

+ CS(COMM) 228/2023

M D OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff

Through:Mr. Anukrit Gupta, Mr. Dev Singh,

Mr. Ajay Sharma & Mr. Aarya Bhat,

Advocates.

versus

DEUTSCHE BANK AG .....Defendant

Through:Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1.The present suit has been filed seeking recovery of a sum

Rs.3,45,37,097/- along withpendente liteand future interest. The suit was filed

on 13

th

April, 2023 and summons in the suit were issued on 19

th

April, 2023.

The Courtvideorder dated 16

th

May, 2024 observed that no oral evidence is

required in the present suit. Therefore, the suit has been adjudicated on the basis

of pleadings and documents filed by the parties.

BRIEFFACTS

2.The plaintiff is a company engaged in diverse businesses including

manufacture and export of gold jewellery and gold medallions (‘plaintiff’).

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 2 of 17

3.The defendant is a banking company incorporated and registered under

laws of Federal Republic of Germany and is carrying on business in India

(‘Defendant Bank’).

4.An ‘Interest Equalisation Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment Rupee

Export Credit’ (‘IE Scheme’) was launched by the Directorate General of

ForeignTrade (‘DGFT’) and the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) with effect from

1

st

April, 2015 to provide interest subvention to certain categories of exporters

beyond the existing concessional rate of interest for export credit. The IE

Scheme came into effect from 1

st

April, 2015 and was originally applicable for

a period of 5 yearsi.e.until 31

st

March, 2020.

5.Under the IE Scheme, interest subvention of 3% was provided to eligible

exporters, which was increased to 5% with effect from 2

nd

November, 2018 in

respect of exports made by MSME manufacturer exporters. For non MSME

manufacturer exporters, interest subvention was kept at 3%.

6.The interest subvention of 5% for MSME and 3% for others was further

extended multiple times andvideCircular dated 1

st

July, 2021, it was further

extended till 30

th

September, 2021.

7.In September 2021, the Plaintiff being an MSME manufacturer exporter,

applied for post-shipment credit from Defendant Bank for 3 Export bills bearing

numbers 796XCP2100343, 796XCP2100343 and 796XCP2100352 (‘Export

Bills’), for a total amount of Rs.240.90 Crore.

8.A Debit Advice was issued by the Defendant Bank showing the interest

rate at 5% per annum on the facility for entire period from the date of

disbursementi.e.23

rd

September, 2021 up to the date of repayment/maturityi.e.

17

th

June, 2022. As per the Debit Advice, an amount of Rs.8,80,95,479/- was

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 3 of 17

debited from the Plaintiff’s bank account, charging interest for the entire period

from date of disbursement till date of maturity.

9.On 30

th

September, 2021 the Defendant Bank issued a Credit Advice

where they credited the bank account of Plaintiff with interest subvention

amount of Rs. 8,80,95,479/-. Hence, the entire amount was credited for full

tenor of the credit from 23

rd

September, 2021 to 17

th

June, 2022.

10.On 3

rd

January, 2022, the plaintiff wrote an email to the Defendant Bank

stating that in terms of the IE Scheme, the Defendant Bank was required to

completely pass on the benefit of the IE Scheme. On 23

rd

February, 2022, the

Defendant Bank replied to the plaintiff’s email along with extract of a response

received from the RBI.

11.The plaintiff responded to the aforesaid email on 25

th

February, 2022

stating that in terms of paragraph no. 2(iii) referred to in RBI’s reply, only the

date of disbursement is relevant, and not the tenor of the Export Bills.

12.On 8

th

March, 2022 the IE Scheme was once again extended by the RBI

with effect from 1

st

October, 2021 to 31

st

March, 2024 with reduced rate of

subvention of 3% as opposed to the 5% rate applicable to MSME manufacturer

exporters earlier.

13.On 8

th

June, 2022, the defendant sent an e-mail to the plaintiff calling

upon the plaintiff to refund the differential amount of 2% of additional interest

subvention that was credited by them amounting to Rs.3,45,37,097/-.

14.The plaintiff,videits e-mail dated 17

th

June, 2022 opposed the Defendant

Bank’s demand and reiterated that the benefit of IE Scheme had been validly

availed during September, 2021 when the Scheme was in force.

15.On 22

nd

June, 2022, Defendant Bank debited a sum of Rs.3,45,37,097/-

from the plaintiff’s bank account. The plaintiff issued an email to the Defendant

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 4 of 17

Bank, disputing the aforesaid debit. The Defendant Bank in its reply dated 23

rd

June, 2022, stated that the basis to set-off the differential amount calculated at

2% is on account of the 8

th

March, 2022 Circular issued by the RBI. On 4

th

July,

2022, plaintiff issued an email to the Defendant Bank seeking the refund of the

debited amount.

16.Since the Defendant Bank did not refund, the present suit has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

PLAINTIFF

17.In terms of clause 2(e) of the IE Scheme, the banks are required to pass

on the full benefit of interest equalisation upfront, as applicable to eligible

exporters and submit claims to the RBI for reimbursement. The IE Scheme

states that the interest equalisation benefit should be available from the date of

disbursement until the date of repayment. Therefore, the Defendant Bank is

required to pass on the interest subvention upfront for the entire duration of the

export credit.

18.In September, 2021 when the plaintiff applied for post-shipment credit

from Defendant Bank, it was disclosed in the Collection Order that the

tenor/maturity is 17

th

June, 2022. Therefore, the Defendant Bank knew that

tenor of the credit was beyond the last date of the IE Scheme which was till 30

th

September, 2021.

19.The RBI Circular dated 8

th

March, 2022, reducing the interest

equalisation rate to 3% would not apply to the transactions that are subject

matter of the present suit since the disbursement had already taken place in

September, 2021.

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 5 of 17

20.In terms of clause 2(b)(ii) of the RBI Circular dated 4

th

December, 2015,

it was the responsibility of the Defendant Bank to seek refund of the entire

subvention passed on in month of September, 2021 from the RBI within 15 days

of the succeeding month. However, the Defendant Bank belatedly on 29

th

October, 2021, made a partial reimbursement claim of Rs. 17,52,740/-, applying

the interest equalisation rate of 5% from the date of reimbursement upto 30

th

September, 2021.

21.It is only in June 2022, after a delay of about seven months, the Defendant

Bank filed its reimbursement claims with the RBI limiting its claim of interest

subvention to 3% in terms of the RBI Circular dated 8

th

March, 2022. Therefore,

it cannot be said that the claim of the Defendant bank for a full 5% was rejected

by the RBI.

DEFENDANT

22.The Defendant Bank was only acting as an intermediary in the

implementation of the IE Scheme between the Government of India acting

through RBI and the eligible exporters and therefore, cannot be fastened with

any financial liability.

23.Both the DGFT and the RBI have already rejected the plaintiff’s

interpretation of the IE Scheme and therefore, the present plaint has been filed

without any cause of action.

24.The action of the Defendant Bank in recovering the amount claimed in

the suit is in terms of the Circulars of the RBI /DGFT and does not suffer from

any infirmity.

25.It is not disputed that the Export Bills were discounted by the Defendant

Bank prior to 30

th

September, 2021. The Defendant Bank extended the benefit

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 6 of 17

of the IE Scheme to the plaintiff in respect of the three Export Bills at the

request of the plaintiff on the assumption andbonafidebelief that the interest

subvention would be extended further beyond 30

th

September, 2021 at the same

rate of 5% per annum. Since the subvention rate was reduced from 5% to 3%

from 1

st

October, 2021, the defendant reclaimed the differential amount of 2%

from the plaintiff.

26.The DGFT clarification dated 8

th

July, 2022, in no uncertain terms states

that the disbursements made prior to 30

th

September, 2021 in relation to the IE

Scheme benefit of 5% could have been passed on upfront by the bank only for

the period up to 30

th

September, 2021 irrespective of whether the tenure of the

advance transcended beyond the 30

th

September, 2021.

27.The amount reclaimed by the Defendant Bank from the plaintiff was in

line with the RBI Circular dated 8th March, 2022, and the clarification issued

by the DGFT on 8

th

July, 2022. The interpretation placed by the plaintiff on the

DGFT clarification and the RBI Circulars is misplaced.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

28.Based on the pleadings in the suit and submissions made on behalf of the

counsel for the parties, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the

Defendant Bank has correctly deducted the amount of Rs. 3,45,37,097/-, in

terms of communication/circulars issued by the RBI and the DGFT. In other

words, whether the plaintiff would be entitled to interest subvention at the rate

of 5% for the entire duration of the credit or the interest subvention would stand

reduced to 3% with effect from 1

st

October, 2021.

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 7 of 17

29.The IE Scheme was launched by the DGFT and the RBI with effect from

1

st

April, 2015 to provide interest subvention to certain category of

manufacturer exporters.

30.By a subsequent Circular dated 29

th

November, 2018, the RBI increased

the interest equalisation rate from 3% to 5% with effect from 2

nd

November,

2018 in respect of exports by MSME sector manufacturers.

31.Thereafter,videCirculars dated 13

th

May, 2020, 12

th

April, 2021 and 1

st

July, 2021 the Scheme was extended till 30

th

September, 2021. There were no

further extensions to the IE Scheme thereafter. The RBIvideCircular dated 8

th

March 2022, extended the IE Scheme retrospectively with effect from 1

st

October, 2021 till 31

st

March, 2024. However, the interest equalisation rates

under the IE Scheme were revised to 3% for MSME manufacturer exporters

and 2% for manufacturer exporters.

32.In September, 2021, the plaintiff applied for post shipment credit from

Defendant Bank. A tabulation providing the details of discounting of the three

export bills is provided below:

Export bill Date of

discounting/maturity

Amount of

loan (in

rupees)

Interest

Charged

(in rupees)

Interest

Equalization

(in rupees)

796XCP210034323.09.2021/17.06.2022117,10,00,0004,28,29,7264,28,28,726

796XCP210034423.09.2021/17.06.202267,20,00,0002,44,86,5752,44,86,575

796XCP210035229.09.2021/24.06.202256,60,00,0002,07,79,1782,07,79,178

33.As is evident from the collection order (at pages 61-62, 77-78, 98-99 of

the documents filed by the plaintiff) placed on record by the plaintiff, the

tenor/maturity of the facility was 17

th

June, 2022, which was beyond the

Scheme date,i.e.30

th

September, 2021. The Credit Advice issued by the

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 8 of 17

Defendant Bank to the plaintiff clearly stipulated that “interest subvention given

for the full tenor from 23

rd

September, 2021 to 17

th

June, 2022” (at pages 75,

96, 110 of the documents filed by the plaintiff).

34.The relevant extracts from the DGFT Circular (at pages 14-47 of the

documents filed by the plaintiff) providing the details of the IE Scheme are set

out below:

“The Government has approved the Interest Equalisation Scheme for Pre

and Post Shipment Rupee Credit with effect from 1

st

April, 2015 for 5 years.

2. The details of the Scheme are as follows:

(a) The rate of interest equalisation @ 3% per annum will be available on

Pre Shipment Rupee Export Credit and Post Shipment Rupee Export

Credit.

(b)The scheme would be applicable w.e.f 01.04.2015 for 5 years.

Government, however, reserves the right to modify/amend the Scheme at

any time.

*** *** ***

(e) Banks are required to completely pass on the benefit of interest

equalisation, as applicable, to the eligible exporters upfront and submit

the claims to RBI for reimbursement, duly certified by the external

auditor.”

[emphasis supplied]

35.Clause 2(e) of the IE Scheme mandates that the banks shall “completely”

pass on the benefit under the Scheme to the eligible exporters “upfront”. The

use of the words “completely” and “upfront” indicate a sense of finalityi.e., it

cannot be undone at a later stage. Accordingly, during the period of the IE

Scheme was in force, the eligible exporter would be entitled to the entire

amount of the claim upfront, irrespective of the tenor of the credit, and the same

cannot be claimed back.

36.At this stage, a reference may be made to the RBI Circular dated 8

th

March, 2022 (at pages 55-58 of the documents filed by the plaintiff). The

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 9 of 17

relevant extracts from paragraph nos. 2, 2.2, 3 and 4 of the RBI Circular of 8

th

March, 2022 are set out below:

“… 2. Government of India has approved the extension of Interest

Equalization Scheme for Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit

('Scheme') up to March 31, 2024 or till further review, whichever is earlier.

The extension takes effect from October 1, 2021 and ends on March 31,

2024. The modifications made by the Government to the Scheme are

detailed below:

*** *** ***

2.2Revised interest equalisation rates under the Scheme will now be 3

per cent for MSME manufacturer exporters exporting under any HS

lines, and 2 per cent for manufacturer exporters and merchant exporters

exporting under 410 HS lines (after excluding 6 HS lines pertaining to

Telecom Sector as mentioned above).

*** *** ***

3.For the period from October 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022, banks

shall identify the eligible exporters as per the Scheme, credit their

accounts with the eligible amount of interest equalisation and submit

sector-wise consolidated reimbursement claim for the said period to the

Reserve Bank by April 30, 2022.

4.With effect from April 1, 2022, banks shall reduce the interest rate

charged to the eligible exporters upfrontas per the guidelinesand submit

the claims in original within 15 days from the end of the respective month,

with bank's seal, and signed by authorised person, in the prescribed

format, as modified (Annex I).”

[emphasis supplied]

37.On behalf of the Defendant Bank, it is submitted that since the aforesaid

Circular retrospectively extended the Scheme from 1

st

October, 2021 and

revised the subvention rate to 3%, the said subvention rate would be applicable

for the remaining tenor of the credit from 1

st

October, 2021 till the date of

maturity. Therefore, it is entitled to recover excess 2% interest paid to the

plaintiff.

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 10 of 17

38.The reliance placed by the Defendant Bank on the RBI Circular dated 8

th

March, 2022 is completely misplaced. The use of the word “now” in paragraph

2.2 makes it clear that the change in rate is prospective. The expression “now

revised to 3% for MSME” used in paragraph 2.2 has to be read in conjunction

with paragraph 4 of the Circular to mean that the interest rate would stand

reduced to 3% from 1

st

April, 2022. Since, the Circular was issued on 8

th

March,

2022, it appears that the intention of RBI was to reduce interest rates

prospectively from 1

st

April, 2022. Paragraph 3 of the Circular does not refer to

reduction of rate.

39.On a plain reading of the aforesaid Circular, it does not authorise the

Defendant Bank to claim benefits that are already been given by the Bank to

the eligible exporters until 30

th

September, 2021. The 5% subvention rate was

granted as an upfront discount at the time when the credit facilities were

extended to the plaintiff in terms of the existing IE Scheme. The said discount

could not be altered or reversed at a subsequent stage on account of change in

the subvention rate in the future. The Circular dated 8

th

March, 2022 cannot be

given effect retrospectively to recover the amounts from the plaintiff that had

been paid earlier when the earlier Scheme was in force.

40.In this regard, on 16

th

June, 2022, the plaintiff sought a clarification from

DGFT with regard to paragraph no. 2(e) of the IE Scheme issued by the DGFT

(at pages 119-121 of the documents filed by the plaintiff). The relevant extracts

from the clarification sought by the plaintiff are set out below:

“We seek a clarification that in cases where the usance export bill was

lodged with the bank on or before 30.09.2021 and the repayment date fell

beyond 30.09.2021, the banks were required to pass on the complete

benefit of interest equalisationupfront from the date of disbursement up

to the date of repaymentat the rate of 5%, as was prevailing on the date

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 11 of 17

of disbursement before 30.09.2021. We request you to kindly issue the

clarification at the earliest and oblige.”

[emphasis supplied]

41.The DGFT replied to the plaintiff’s clarification email on 8

th

July, 2022

(at page 127 of the documents filed by the plaintiff), stating as under:

“2.In this regard, it is stated that for disbursements made prior to

September 30

th

, 2021, Interest Equalisation Scheme benefits of 3% or 5%,

as the case may be, could have been passed on,upfront by the bank only

for the period up to September 30

th

, 2021,irrespective of whether the

tenor of the advance transcended beyond September 30, 2021.The

exporter would be eligible for revised Interest Equalisation rates

downward to 2%/3% with effect from October 1

st

, 2021 in accordance

with RBI circular

DOR.STR.REC.93/04.02.001/2021-22 dated March 8, 2022.”

[emphasis supplied]

42.Theclarification by DGFT provides that for disbursements made “prior

to September 30, 2021”, the eligible exporter would be entitled to benefit under

the Scheme “upfront by the Bank”. It further clarifies that the banks would pass

on the benefit upfront for the period up to 30

th

September, 2021, “irrespective

of whether the tenor of the advance transcended beyond 30

th

September, 2021”.

43.It is contended on behalf of the Defendant Bank that since the

clarification used the words “only for the period up to 30th September, 2021”,

the benefit can be given only up to the maturity period of the credit till 30

th

September, 2021 and not for maturity period beyond the same.

44.I am unable to accept this submission. In my considered view, the

expression “only for the period upto 30th September, 2021” has been used in

respect of benefits passed on by the Bank to the exporter and would not apply

to the period of the credit. This becomes apparent from the subsequent words

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 12 of 17

“irrespective of whether the tenor of the advance transcended beyond

September 30, 2021”.

45.The clarification of DGFT makes it clear that the tenor of the credit is not

a relevant factor for determining the benefit to be paid to the eligible exporter.

46.The subsequent sentence “The exporter would be eligible for revised

Interest Equalisation rates downward to 2%/3% with effect from October 1

st

,

2021 in accordance with RBI Circular …… dated March 8, 2022.” would apply

only in respect of an exporter who availed the credit after 1

st

October, 2021 and

not in respect of an exporter who had availed the credit before 30

th

September,

2021.

47.It is important to bear in mind that the IE Scheme was launched to

alleviate the interest burden on manufacturer exporters by providing subsidised

pre and post shipment rupee export credit and thereby enhance the global

competitiveness of Indian exports by lowering the cost of finance. Therefore,

Clause 2(e) of the IE Scheme required the banks to completely pass on the

interest subvention benefit upfront to the exporters and claim the same from

RBI. The position taken by the Defendant Bank would completely defeat the

objective of the IE Scheme.

48.In light of the discussion above, I am unable to accept the explanation

given on behalf of the Defendant Bank that the benefit was given by the

Defendant Bank to the plaintiff on the assumption or belief that the Scheme

would be extended beyond 30

th

September, 2021. If the defendant was of the

view that the subvention amount has wrongly been given to the plaintiff, it

would have taken steps to recover the said amount soon after 30

th

September,

2021, when the Scheme was not extended. But it was only on 23

rd

February,

2022 that the Defendant Bank forwarded a clarification that it received from

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 13 of 17

RBI. Even in the said letter, the Defendant Bank did not raise any demand on

the plaintiff. The demand was made by the Defendant Bank for the first time

only on 8

th

June, 2022, after the 8

th

March, 2022 Circular was issued by the

RBI.

49.It was towards the implementation of the IE Scheme that the RBI issued

the Circular dated 4

th

December, 2015 (at pages 11-12 of the documents filed

by the plaintiff), in terms of which banks were required to submit a consolidated

monthly reimbursement claims to the RBI for interest equalisation, which was

passed on by the banks to exporters, within fifteen (15) days from the end of

the month. The relevant extracts from the said Circular are set out below:

“2. Accordingly, scheduled commercial banks are advised to adhere to the

following operational procedure for claiming reimbursement:

A. Procedure for passing on the benefit of interest equalisation to

exporters:

*** *** ***

(iii) The interest equalisation benefit will be available from the date of

disbursement up to the date of repayment or up to the date beyond which

the outstanding export credit becomes overdue. However, the interest

equalisation will be available to the eligible exporters only during the

period the scheme is in force.

B. Procedure for claiming reimbursement of interest equalisation benefit

already passed on to eligible exporters

*** *** ***

(ii) The sector-wise consolidated monthly reimbursement claim for interest

equalisation for the period December 2015 onwards should be submitted

in originalwithin 15 days from the end of the respective month,with

bank’s seal and signed by authorised person, in the prescribed format

given in Annex I.

*** *** ***

(v) The reimbursement of interest equalisation claim will be made as and

when the funds are received from the Government of India.”

[emphasis supplied]

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 14 of 17

50.A reading of paragraph 2(A)(iii) set out above, demonstrates that the

eligibility of the exporter has to be determined during the period the Scheme is

in effect. It does not restrict the amount of benefit on the basis of the tenor of

advance once the exporter is found to be eligible.

51.As per Clause 2(B)(ii) of the Circular, the Defendant Bank was obliged

to submit a reimbursement claim to the RBI within 15 days from the end of

each month. Therefore, in the present case, the Defendant Bank was required to

submit its reimbursement claim to RBI by 15

th

October, 2021 for the interest

subvention at the rate of 5%, which amounted to Rs.8,80,95,479/-.

52.From the written statement filed by the Defendant, it appears that the

Defendant Bank raised only a partial reimbursement claim amounting to

₹17,52,740/- on 29 October 2021, by applying the interest equalisation rate of

5% from the date of discounting up to 30 September 2021.

1

The Defendant

Bank has not offered any explanation for its failure to seek reimbursement of

the entire eligible amount from the RBI.

53.It was only on 10

th

June, 2022, 15

th

June, 2022 and 15

th

July, 2022, after

the Circular of 8

th

March, 2022 was issued that the Defendant Bank filed its

reimbursement claims with the RBI for a total amount of Rs. 4,81,14,000/-. The

Defendant Bank limited its claim for reimbursement to 3% and not 5%.

54.It is inexplicable as to why the Defendant Bank did not claim the entire

amount of subvention given to the plaintiff, which was credited by the

Defendant Bank in the month of September, 2021.

55.Significantly, the plaintiff had also provided undertakings in respect of

Export Bills to the Defendant Bank that in case the claim for interest

1

Paragraph 19(c) of the written statement.

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 15 of 17

equalisation is rejected, the plaintiff will reimburse the Bank for the rejected

interest amount.

56.Since the Defendant Bank never claimed reimbursement of the entire

claim from the RBI, it cannot be said that claim was rejected by RBI. The

plaintiff cannot be penalised for the failure or the negligence of the Defendant

Bank to claim the full 5% subvention benefit from RBI.

57.On 23

rd

February, 2022, the Defendant Bank sent an email to the plaintiff

which purportedly contained a clarification received from the RBI, regarding

the eligibility of the plaintiff in the subvention Scheme (at pages 114-115 of the

documents filed by the plaintiff). The Defendant Bank places reliance on the

RBI’s clarification, the relevant extract of the said email is set out below:

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 16 of 17

58.It is apparent from the aforesaid response of RBI that the RBI has mainly

reiterated the terms of paragraph no. 2(iii) of its Circular on IE Scheme. No

further clarification has been given by the RBI. The Defendant Bank did not

raise any demand on the plaintiff after receiving the said clarification, which

makes it obvious that the Defendant Bank did not view this clarification as a

justification to recover monies paid to the plaintiff for the period after 30

th

September, 2021. The reliance placed by the Defendant Bank on the

clarification received from the RBI is completely misplaced.

59.An analysis of the material on record, leaves no doubt in my mind that

the relevant date for subvention would be the date when the plaintiff approached

the Defendant Bank for discounting the Export Bills and the bills were

discounted by the Defendant Bank, passing on the entire subvention benefit

upfront to the plaintiff, knowing fully well that the term of the credit was till

17

th

June, 2022. The plaintiff would be entitled to interest subvention at the rate

of 5% for the entire duration of the credit. Resultantly, the Defendant Bank has

incorrectly recovered the amount of Rs. 3,45,37,097/- from the account of the

plaintiff.

60.In view of the discussion above, it is held that the Defendant Bank has

wrongfully recovered the sum from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is entitled to

recover a sum of Rs.3,45,37,097/- from the Defendant Bank. The plaintiff is

also entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of making such recovery

i.e.22

nd

June, 2022, till the actual payment.

61.Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,45,37,097/- along with interest @ 8%

per annum from 22

nd

June, 2022 till the actual realisation of the amount. The

plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.

CS(COMM) 228/2023 Page 17 of 17

62.Decree sheet be drawn.

AMIT BANSAL

(JUDGE)

JANUARY 6, 2026

ds