Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs R K Printers on 5 June, 2025
KABC170025072024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84)
Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L.,
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.No.1270/2025
Dated on this 5th day of June 2025
Plaintiff/s CANARA BANK
A body corporate constituted under the
banking companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970
and having its Head office at
No.112, J.C. Road, Bangalore-5600 002.
and having amongst others a Branch
office at Lottegollahalli Branch,
Rep. by its Manager.
(By Sri N. Suresha, Advocate)
// versus //
Defendant/s R K PRINTERS
By Sulochana G.R.
No.4/2 1st Floor, 2nd Main Road,
West of Chord Road, Attiguppe,
Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 040.
(Exparte)
2
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc
Date of Institution of suit : 20-09-2024
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 24-04-2025
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 05-06-2025
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
00 08 16
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against defendant, which is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietrix for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 16,55,855/= along with interest.
2. The plaint averments in brief are that, the defendant has availed term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from the plaintiff on 5- 10-2021 and OD facility of Rs. 5 lakhs on 29-10-2021, which was enhanced to Rs. 12 lakhs on 8-11-2022. Defendant has also executed all the documents in respect of availing the said credit facilities from the plaintiff and thereafter the 3 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc defendant has defaulted in repayment of the same. As on the date of the suit, the total amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff towards the term loan and OD facility is Rs. 16,55,855 and hence for recovery of the said sum along with interest, the present suit is filed.
3. On issuance of suit summons to the defendant, initially, the suit summons was returned unserved as door number not traced and thereafter, plaintiff filed application to take out paper publication which was allowed and on the basis of paper publication taken out in Kannada Prabha newspaper, the defendant is placed ex parte.
4. In the ex parte evidence, the bank manager is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. P1 to P21.
5. Thereafter I have heard the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the records of the case.
6. In this case, issues are not framed since the defendant is ex parte and therefore at this stage, the following point is framed for consideration:
4
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 16,55,855 from the defendant along with interest?
7. My answer to the above point is as per finding for the following:-
REASONS.
8. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the defendant has availed term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from the plaintiff on 5- 10-2021 and OD facility of Rs. 5 lakhs on 29-10-2021, which was enhanced to Rs. 12 lakhs on 8-11-2022. Defendant has also executed all the documents in respect of availing the said credit facilities from the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant has defaulted in repayment of the same. As on the date of the suit, the total amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff towards the term loan and OD facility is Rs. 16,55,855 and hence for recovery of the said sum along with interest, the present suit is filed.
9. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined its manager as PW1 and got marked Ex. P1 to P 21. 5
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc
10. Ex. P1 is the authorization letter in favour of PW1. Ex. P2 is the loan application form filed by the defendant seeking OD facility of Rs. 5 lakhs. Ex. P3 is the request for OD facility. Ex. P4 is the sanction memorandum dated 29- 10-2021 under which the plaintiff has sanctioned OD facility of Rs. 5 lakhs to the defendant. Ex. P5 is the certificate of loan papers obtained. Ex. P6 is the promissory note for Rs. 5 lakhs executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex. P7 is the cash credit agreement in respect of OD facility of Rs. 5 lakhs. Ex. P8 is the supplemental agreement dated 8-11-2022 at the time of enhancing the OD facility from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 12 lakhs. Ex. P9 is the promissory note for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7 lakhs. Ex. P10 is the sanction memorandum dated 18-11-2022 enhancing the OD facility to Rs. 12 lakhs. Ex. P11 is the certificate of loan papers obtained. Ex. P12 is the loan application form for enhancement of OD facility. Ex. P13 is the sanction memorandum for having sanctioned the term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs to the defendant on 5-10-2021. Ex. P14 is the letter evidencing execution of documents. Ex. P15 is the hypothecation deed in respect of the said loan. Ex. P16 is 6 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc the certificate of loan papers obtained. Ex. P17 and P18 are the loan account statements. Ex. P19 is the certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act. Ex. P20 is the non-starter report of PIM. Ex. P21 is the paper publication on the basis of which defendant is placed ex parte.
11. As already noted Supra, since the defendant is exparte, the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff has remained undisputed and there is also no rebuttal evidence.
12. Having considered the material on record, at the outset the court has to see whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation. In this regard, it is to be noted that, essentially, this suit is filed for recovery of two loans i.e., term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs which was sanctioned on 5-10-2021 and the OD facility which was enhanced to Rs. 12 lakhs on 18-11-2022. It is to be noted that, suit is filed on 20-09-2024 which is within 3 years from the above dates and therefore suit is filed within the period of limitation.
13. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, at the outset it is to be noted that, the law is settled that, when 7 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc defendant is ex parte and has not contested the suit, the court cannot doubt the factual aspects of the case set up by the plaintiff as per the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of G.H. Chengalarayappa v. G. Chengalarayappa, ILR 1998 KAR 4031 :
4. When a plaintiff comes to the Court and the defendant remains exparte, unless it is seen that the claim made by the plaintiff is barred by any law, the Court have no right to doubt the factual aspects, in the absence of any opposition to it. Here is a case where the question whether the plaintiff had a licence on the date of transaction is one of the fact. Unless, the defendant claims it and puts as an issue, it is deemed to have been admitted by him that the plaintiff had a licence on that day. The matters like this depends upon the particular fact to be alleged and denial being made by the defendant. The Court cannot frame a issue for itself and reject the claim of the plaintiff.
Unfortunately, the plaintiff is being driven from piller to post and post to pillar from eleven years for recovery of sum of Rs. 4000/- and odd. (Emphasis supplied)
14. In the case on hand, from Ex. P4 it is clear that the bank has sanctioned OD of Rs. 5 lakhs to the defendant and defendant has duly executed the cash credit agreement at Ex. P7 in token of having accepted the said loan. The said 8 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc OD facility was enhanced to Rs. 12 lakhs from Rs. 5 lakhs on 18-11-2022, as per the sanction memorandum at Ex. P10 and in this regard the defendant has executed the supplementary agreement at Ex. P8 and also executed the promissory note for the difference amount of Rs. 7 lakhs as per Ex. P9.
15. Similarly, insofar as the term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs is concerned, there is the sanction memorandum at Ex. P13 for having sanctioned the said term loan and there is the deed of hypothecation in respect of the said loan at Ex. P15. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the defendant has availed the OD facility of Rs. 12 lakhs and term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from the plaintiff.
16. It is to be noted that the defendant is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietrix namely Smt. Sulochana. The law is settled that proprietorship concern does not have a legal identity of its own and it is only a trade name under which the proprietrix carries on business. In this regard, reference may be made to the law laid down by Honorable Apex Court in the case of Vinayak 9 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc Purshottam Dube (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat and Ors. (01.03.2024 - SC) : Civil Appeal Nos. 7768-7769 of 2023 In Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes, MANU/SC/7276/2007 : 2007:INSC:379 : (2007) 5 SCC 103, while distinguishing a juristic person such as a company, a partnership or an association of persons from a proprietary concern, it was observed that a person who carries on business in the name of a business concern, but he being a proprietor thereof, would be solely responsible for conduct of its affairs. A proprietary concern is not a company. Further, a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the proprietor of the business carries on the business. A suit by or against a proprietary concern is by or against the proprietor of the business. In the event of the death of the proprietor of a proprietary concern, it is the legal representatives of the proprietor who alone can sue or be sued in respect of the dealings of the proprietary business which is by representing the estate of the deceased proprietor. The real party who is being sued is the proprietor of the said business. Therefore, if a proprietor had to carry on certain obligations personally under a contract, the same cannot be fastened on his legal representatives.
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. In the light of the above law, it is clear that, under law, essentially the proprietorship concern and proprietrix are 10 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc one and the same entity and therefore both are liable to repay the above loans to the plaintiff.
18. Insofar as the balance amount due in respect of the above loan accounts are concerned, the loan account statements are produced and marked as Ex. P17 and P18. As per Ex. P17, the total balance due and payable in respect of the OD facility as on 31-08-2024, which is just before filing of the suit is Rs. 11,79,636. As per Ex. P18, the total balance payable in respect of the term loan of Rs. 6 lakhs as on 5-9-2024, which is before the filing of the suit is Rs. 4,76,218. It is to be noted that the loan account statements are maintained by the bank in the regular course of its business and therefore, they are reliable documents and therefore, the balance amount payable as per the said loan account statements deserve acceptance. Therefore, the sum total in respect of the two loan accounts comes to Rs. 16,55,855, which is also the suit claim in the present suit. Therefore, plaintiff has proved that plaintiff is entitled to recover the said sum from the defendant. 11
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc
19. Insofar as the interest component is concerned, the plaintiff is claiming interest at 10.90% plus 2% penal interest, i.e., 12.90% per annum. Considering that defendant has defaulted in repayment of the loan and considering that this is a commercial loan transaction, the said rate of interest at 12.90% per annum being claimed is reasonable and deserves acceptance. Apart from this, plaintiff is claiming compound interest, but in my view, it is only simple interest that can be awarded by this court. Accordingly, I hold that plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 16,55,855 from the defendant along with interest at 12.90% per annum from date of suit till date of realization. Accordingly, answering the point for consideration, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER.
The suit is partly decreed, with cost.
It is held that, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 16,55,855/= along with interest at 12.90% per annum from the 12 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc date of suit till date of realization, from the defendant.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
Office to issue soft copy of this
judgment to both sides by email if
furnished.
[Dictated using MacWhisper Pro 10.8.1, transcript revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 05th day of June, 2025] SUDINDRA NATH Digitally signed by SUDINDRA NATH S S Date: 2025.06.06 10:48:58 +0530 (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
PW1 : Sri Maneet Kumar
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
Defendant/s:
Nil
3. List of documents marked on behalf of
Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Letter of authority
Ex.P2 : Loan application form
Ex.P3 : Request for OD
13
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1270-2024_Judgment.doc Ex.P4 : Sanction memorandum.
Ex.P5 : Certificate of loan paper.
Ex.P6 : On demand promissory note.
Ex.P7 : Cash credit agreement.
Ex.P8 : Supplementary agreement.
Ex.P9 : On demand promissory note.
Ex.P10 : Sanction memorandum.
Ex.P11 : Certificate of loan paper.
Ex.P12 : Loan application.
Ex.P13 : Sanction memorandum.
Ex.P14 : Letter evidencing execution of documents. Ex.P15 : Hypothecation deed.
Ex.P16 : Certificate of loan paper.
Ex.P17 &Loan account statement (2 in Nos.) Ex.P18 :
Ex.P19 Certificate under BBEA. Ex.P20 : Non starter report of PIM. Ex.P21 : Paper publication.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of Defendant/s:
Nil (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ACC & SJ, (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU