Bangalore District Court
Bank Has Filed This Suit For Recovery Of ... vs Had Availed Loan Of Rs on 3 September, 2021
C.R.P.67] Government of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-09) AT
BANGALORE
Present: UMESHA.H.K, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2021
SC. No:1584/2019
Plaintif : Canara Bank,
Peenya 3rd Stage, Bangalore,
Represented by its duly constituted
GPA holder & officer
Sri. Suresh Dhaudti (Major)
S/o Late Sri. P.S.Dhaudti
(By Sri.T.Mohan Raj-Advocate)
-Vs-
Defendant : Sri. Raju M (Major)
S/o Sri Manickayam
# 15, 8th Cross,
Dayanandanagar.
Srirampuram,
Bangalore-21.
(Exparte)
SCH-9 2 SC.1584/2019
Date of Institution of suit : 29.11.2019
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 27.08.2021
recording of the evidence
The date of pronouncement of : 03.09.2021
Judgment
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 10 05
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff bank has filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.61,889.85/- with interest @ 10.65% p.a., compounded monthly plus 2% penal interest per annum from the date of the suit till realization.
2. It is stated in the plaint that defendant had approached the plaintiff bank on 10.11.2015 requesting for sanction of LHV SRTO Loan under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme for the purpose of purchasing Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three Wheeler, value of Rs.2,09,300/- and defendant availed loan of Rs.1,75,000/- and thereby executed Deed of Hypothecation & letter of undertaking on 19.11.2015. It is further stated in the SCH-9 3 SC.1584/2019 plaint that defendant has agreed to repay the said amount within 36 equal monthly installments @ Rs.5,760/- p.m., each and last installment of Rs.5,778/-. The first installment commenced from January 2016 onwards and agreed to pay interest @ 10.20% p.a. compounded with monthly plus 2% penal interests per annum. Inspite of repeated demands he did not repaid the amount as agreed by him. Hence, without alternative plaintiff bank has issued legal notice to defendant on 03.10.2019. The defendant is due an amount of Rs.61,889.85 to the plaintiff bank. Inspite of service of notice, defendant failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the suit.
3. After registering the suit, this court has issued suit summons to the defendant. Since the summons issued by this court was not served, plaintiff bank has taken steps through paper publication. Summons was published in daily Kannada Newspaper i.e., Sumyuktha Karnataka dt;07.02.2021. Inspite of paper publication summons, defendant remained absent. Hence, placed exparte.
SCH-9 4 SC.1584/2019
4. Plaintiff bank in order to prove its case, has examined one Sri.Shashi Raj, Senior Manager as PW1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to P15.
5. Heard arguments. Perused the records.
6. The following points would arise for my consideration.
1) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that the defendant had availed loan of Rs.1,75,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12.65% compounded monthly and executed the loan documents as stated in plaint?
2) Whether plaintiff bank is entitled for relief as prayed in the suit?
3) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the partly affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 & 2: Since these two points are quite common in discussions, in order to avoid repetition of fact,s these two points are taken together and answered accordingly. SCH-9 5 SC.1584/2019
9. Plaintiff bank has filed this suit against defendant for recovery of loan amount. It is the case of the plaintiff bank, that defendant approached the plaintiff bank requesting loan for purchasing Atul Gem Cargo XL pick up three wheeler and availed loan of Rs.1,75,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.5,760/- and last installment of Rs.5,778/- commencing from January 2016 and he executed necessary documents on behalf of plaintiff bank. It is the further case of plaintiff that defendant has not repaid the loan amount as agreed by him. Thereafter, without alternative, plaintiff bank issued notice to the defendant. Though notice was served he did not repaid the amount as agreed. Hence, the suit.
10. In order to prove the plaint averments, plaintiff bank examined its Senior Manager as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to
15. PW.1 in lieu of his chief examination has filed chief examination affidavit as provided Under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC and during the course of chief examination he has reiterated the plaint averments, in detail on oath and he specifically SCH-9 6 SC.1584/2019 deposed defendant is defaulter and he has not repaid the loan amount as agreed. Hence, filed the said suit for recovery without any alternative etc. Admittedly, oral evidence placed by plaintiff bank remained intact and unchallenged.
11. To substantiate oral evidence plaintiff bank has also placed Ex.P1 to 15 documents. Ex.P1 is the authorization letter. Ex.P2 is the ID card of PW.1. Ex.P3 is the certificate. Ex.P4 is the loan application, dated 10.11.2015. Ex.P5 is loan sanction letter dt: 19.11.2015. Ex.P6 is the Deed of hypothecation. Ex.P7 is the letter of undertaking. Ex.P8 is the letter evidencing execution of document. Ex.P9 is the notice. Ex.P10 is the postal receipt. Ex.P11 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P12 is the statement of accounts. Ex.P13 is the letter of revival. Ex.P14 is the B- Register Extract. Ex.P15 is the paper publication dt: 07.02.2021. Ex.P15(a) is the published portion. So, all these documents placed by the plaintiff bank clearly establishes that defendant availed loan of Rs.1,75,000/- and agreed to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the SCH-9 7 SC.1584/2019 agreement. Inspite of it, defendant failed to repay the loan amount as agreed by him.
12. Then he executed Ex.P13 document by extending the limitation and reviving the loan. Even after that, defendant failed to repay the loan amount. Thereafter bank authority issued notice. Inspite of service of notice, defendant failed to repay the said loan amount. Admittedly, there is no contrary evidence to disbelieve the case of plaintiff. So, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff bank has proved its case by placing cogent and satisfactory evidence.
13. Plaintiff bank has claimed current and future interest on principal amount @ 10.65% and compounded monthly interest @ 2% penal interest from the date of suit till realization. On perusal of Ex.P12 i.e., statement of accounts, pertaining to the defendant, it discloses that the plaintiff bank has already calculated the interest at agreed rate and including the said interest amount has claimed total Rs.61,889.85/-. Moreover, on perusal of said document, it discloses defendant has paid some SCH-9 8 SC.1584/2019 installments and interest. No doubt, defendant has agreed to pay interest @ 10.65% p.a. and compounded monthly plus 2% penal interest, as per the agreement, in case of breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. Admittedly the loan availed by defendant is a commercial loan. Any how considering the present situation of COVID-19, since 1½ years, this court feels current and future interest can be granted @ 6% p.a., which would meets the ends of justice and plaintiff bank is not entitled for future and pendent lite interest as claimed in the plaint @ 10.65% on the decreed amount. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff bank is entitled to the suit claim with pendente lite and future simple interest at 6% per annum and accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point no.2 in the partly affirmative.
14. Point No.2: In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.SCH-9 9 SC.1584/2019
It is ordered and decreed that the defendant is liable pay to the plaintiff firm a sum of Rs.61,889.85/- together with interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer directly, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 3rd day of September 2021) (Umesha H.K.) Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintif:
PW1 Shashi Raju List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintif:
Ex.P1 Authorization letter
Ex.P2 C/c of ID Card
Ex.P3 Certificate
Ex.P4 Loan application
Ex.P5 Loan sanction letter
Ex.P6 Deed of Hypothecation
Ex.P7 Letter of under taking
SCH-9 10 SC.1584/2019
E.xP8 Letter evidencing execution of document
Ex.P9 Notice
Ex.P10 Postal receipt
Ex.P11 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P12 Account statement
Ex.P13 Letter of revival
Ex.P14 B-Register extract report
Ex.P15 Paper publication on 07.02.2021
Ex.P15(a) Published portion
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
None List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (Umesha H.K.), Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.