Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Man Mohan Kapoor on 8 March, 2007
1
In the court of Sh. Parveen Singh: Civil Judge: Tis Hazari
Courts: Delhi.
Suit no. 84/5
In the matter of:
State Bank of India,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063. .....Plaintiff.
Versus
1.Sh. Man Mohan Kapoor, E-38, Four Square, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
Also at:
Canteen Supervisor, Ashok Hotel Canteen Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.
2. Smt Neelam Kapoor, W/o Sh. M.M. Kapoor, E-38, Four Square, Gole Market, New Delhi.
110001. .....Defendants.
Date of institution: 15.04.2005.
Date of judgment: 08.03.2007. Judgment (Ex-parte) 1 The present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,01,206.39/- has been
filed by the plaintiff bank through Sh. Sanjeev Malik its constituted attorney.
22 The case of the plaintiff is that defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under personal loan scheme. On 06.5.204, plaintiff bank agreed to grant financial accommodation under the aforesaid scheme to the defendant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In consideration of the loan amount, defendants executed documents i.e. Arrangement letter, personal loan agreement both dated 06.5.2004. The defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 also executed a guarantee deed dated 06.5.2004. The amount was to be paid in 36 EMIs for Rs. 3,400/- each.
3 It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 availed the said loan facility but, failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendants no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. It is further submitted that after taking into account all the credits and debits made in account of interest charged a periodic intervals the account showed an outstanding of Rs. 99,846.16/-. As on 15.04.2005, a sum of Rs. 1,01,206.39/- was outstanding against the defendants. Despite repeated requests, the defendants did not make the payment of loan amount. Finally, a legal notice dated 22.02.2005 was served upon the defendants but, the defendants neither replied nor complied the same. Hence, the present suit.
4 On being served with summons for settlement of issues, the defendants filed their written statement. In the written statement a preliminary objection was taken that plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands. A further preliminary objection is taken that suit has not been filed by duly authorised person and further that plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court.
5 On merits, it is submitted that plaintiff bank offered the personal loan to the defendant no. 1 at the nominal rate of interest and hence, the defendant no. 1 accepted the said offer of the 3 plaintiff. It is further submitted that while sanctioning the loan, the plaintiff bank obtained the signatures of defendant no. 1 on some blank papers. It is denied that defendant no. 2 stood as a guarantor for defendant no. 1 or that executed a guarantee deed. It is denied that defendants are liable to pay the suit amount. It is further denied that legal notice dated 22.2.2005 was ever served upon the defendants. Defendants have therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6 In the replication, the contents of the written statement are denied and, those of the plaint are reaffirmed:
7 From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,01,206.39/- as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes at what rate and for what period ? OPP.
3. Relief.
8 Thereafter, on 30.5.2006 on the failure of the defendants to appear in the court, they were proceeded Ex-parte. Plaintiff in its evidence examined Sh. N.K. Grover as PW1.
9 My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. 1 and 2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,01,206.39/- as prayed for ? OPP.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes at what rate and for what period ? OPP.
PW1 Sh. N.K. Grover, deposed in terms of plaint and 4 proved the original loan application vide Ex. PW1/1, arrangement letter dated 06.5.2004 vide Ex. PW-1/2, personal loan agreement of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide Ex. PW-1/3, Original deed of guarantee vide Ex. PW-1/4, Copies of reminders issued by the plaintiff bank vide Ex. PW- 1/5 to Ex. PW-1/19, letter of defendant dated 13.1.2005 vide Ex. PW1/10, true copy of statement of loan account vide Ex. PW-1/11, Legal notice dated 22.2.2005 vide Ex. PW-1/12, original postal receipts of AD cover vide Ex. PW-1/13, and postal receipts of UPC vide Ex. PW1/14. The evidence of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. Therefore, plaintiff has become entitle for a decree. Issues no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief.
In view of my above discussion, the suit of plaintiff is decreed against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 1,01,206.39/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Parveen Singh) court on 08.03.2007. Civil Judge/Delhi.
This judgment contains 4 pages and each bears my signature.5