Bombay High Court

ARUN GANESHRAO VAIRAGARversusFUTURE PROMISE INDIA LTD.THR PRABHAKAR VISHWANATH KADAM AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The trial court correctly exercised its discretion to strike out HDFC Bank as a defendant due to the absence of any substantive connection with the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Summary

The petitioner, Arun Ganeshrao Vairagar, filed a special civil suit claiming he was induced to invest Rs.34,44,400 based on a brochure of the defendant that displayed the names of State Bank of India and HDFC Bank as banking partners. HDFC Bank (respondent no.3) moved an application (Exhibit‑27) to have its name struck out, arguing it had no direct involvement with the plaintiff’s investment. The trial court accepted HDFC Bank’s contention, noting the plaintiff had not produced any evidence of a nexus between the bank and the defendant or of the bank’s role in inducing the investment, and ordered the plaintiff to delete the bank’s name from the plaint. The petitioner appealed, contending that the brochure’s inclusion of the bank’s name and logo justified its presence as a defendant. The High Court upheld the trial court’s discretion, finding no merit in the petition as the plaintiff failed to substantiate any substantive connection between HDFC Bank and the alleged fraud, and consequently dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether HDFC Bank can be struck out as a defendant for lack of substantive nexus with the plaintiff’s claim.
Whether the trial court erred in exercising discretion to delete HDFC Bank’s name from the suit.

Subjects

civil procedure
striking out parties
bank liability
investment fraud
jurisdiction
discretion of trial court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7896

1 wp 1724.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

927 WRIT PETITION NO.1724 OF 2026

Arun Ganeshrao Vairagar
VERSUS
Future Promise India Ltd.thr Prabhakar Vishwanath Kadam
And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. D.S. Kale
...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : February 17, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 29.9.2025

passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge S.D., Parbhani below

application Exhibit-27 in Special Civil Suit no.146 of 2024, by

which application filed by defendant/respondent no.3 i.e.

HDFC Bank to delete its name from the array of defendants has

been allowed.

2. Petitioner is original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.146

of 2024. He instituted the suit alleging that he had invested an

amount of Rs.34,44,400/- with respondent no.1 on the basis of

brochure published by it. Said brochure contains name of two

banks namely State Bank of India and HDFC bank as banking

partner. According to petitioner, returns on his investments are
2 wp 1724.26.odt

not given to him and, therefore, suit has been instituted by him

against defendant no.1 as well as the bankers. Respondent

no.3 HDFC bank caused appearance before Trial Court and

filed an application below Exhibit-27 to strike out its name

from the suit contending that it has no concern with defendant

no.1 and only on the basis of name depicted on brochure

published by defendant no.1, they are added as party. Trial

Court accepted contention of respondent no.3 and allowed the

application, thereby directing the plaintiff to strike out name of

respondent no.3 from the plaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that petitioner was lured to make investment by defendant

no.1. The brochure, which was published clearly shows name

of Bankers alongwith logo. Therefore, they are rightly added

as party in the suit. The trial court observed that plaintiff has

not produced the documents to show that defendant no.1 has

his account with defendant no.3 or defendant no.3 acted with

any intention to induce the plaintiff in order to invest him. In

light of aforesaid circumstances, Trial Court observed that

there is no reason to proceed against defendant no.3. Perusal

of pleadings in plaint suggests that petitioner wants to contend
3 wp 1724.26.odt

that respondent no.3 bank has certified defendant no.1 to carry

business. However, such statement is not supported by any

document on record. There is nothing in the plaint or

documents appended to plaint to show that defendant no.3 has

any nexus with the business of defendant no.1. Present suit is

filed for recovery of the amount. Relief claimed in the suit

does not correspond to any activity of defendant no.3.

4. In that view of the matter, discretion exercised by the

Trial Court while allowing application Exhibit-27 cannot be

faulted with. In result, there is no merit in the writ petition.

Writ petition stands rejected.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
…
AAA/f

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…