Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Rajender Kumar on 15 February, 2007
1
In the court of Sh. Parveen Singh: Civil Judge: Tis Hazari
Courts: Delhi.
Suit no. 167/5
In the matter of:
State Bank of India
having its Central Office at
Madam Cama Road, Nariman
Point, Mumbai.
and one of the Local Head office
at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi
110001, and one of its Branch at
Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi which is under and Administrative
Control of the Local Head office at
New Delhi. ....Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh. Rajender Kumar
16/145-1, Bapa Nagar, Hardhiyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
Second address:
Rajender Kumar Employee I.O.B. Bank.
Preet Vihar Branch, New Delhi (Service to be effected through Branch Manager) ....Defendant.
Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,344/-
Date of institution : 03.8.2005
Date of decision: 15.02.2007.
2
Judgment (Ex-parte)
1 The present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,344/- has been
filed by the plaintiff bank through Sh. Anil Chopra its constituted
attorney.
2 The case of the plaintiff is that defendant approached
the plaintiff bank for grant of loan facility under personal loan scheme. On 14.1.2003, plaintiff bank agreed to grant financial accommodation under the aforesaid scheme to the defendant to the tune of Rs. 96,000/-. In consideration of the loan amount, defendants executed various documents.
3 It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 3,410/- each starting from March 2003 with interest @ 13.60% per annum with quarterly rests calculated at the highest monthly balance by the defendant to the Bank. The defendant availed the said facility but failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, defendant issued certain post dated cheques, they, on being presented were dishonoured. Despite repeated requests, the defendant did not make the payment of loan amount. Finally, a legal notice dated 23.12.2004 was served upon the defendant but, the defendant neither replied nor complied the same. Hence, the present suit.
4 On being served with summon for settlement of issues the defendant did not appear before the court and was proceeded Ex-parte on 12.9.2005.
5 Thereafter, plaintiff led its ex-parte evidence and examined Sh. V.K. Johar as PW-1. He deposed in terms of plaint and proved personal loan agreement vide Ex. PW-1/1, arrangement letter dated 14.1.2003 vide Ex. PW1/2, pronote vide Ex. PW-1/3, D.P. Note vide Ex. Pw-1/4, statement of account vide Ex.3
PW-1/5, certificate vide Ex. PW1/6, legal notice vide Ex. Pw-1/7 6 I have heard the Ld. Counsel of plaintiff, perused the record very carefully. The evidence of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 1,09,344/- 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 15.02.2007 Civil Judge/Delhi. This judgment contains 3
pages and each page bears my signatures.