Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs M/S Ghunghat The Design House on 15 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH1: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE08
(CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
SUIT NO. 625/14
(Old Suit No. 234/08)
1. State Bank of India
Central Office/Corporate Centre at:
State Bank Bhavan, Mumbai40024.
Head office at:
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi110001.
Stressed Assets Resolution Centre at:
23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road,
New Delhi.
Through its Chief Manager
Mr. M.K. Kalra. ................ Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Ghunghat The Design House
Proprietor Sh. Vishal Sharma
S/o Sh. J.P. Sharma
2. Sh. J.P. Sharma
Sh. Sh. B.R. Sharma
both R/o H.No. 7, Gali No. 5,
West Guru Angad Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092. .............Defendants
SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 1 of 24
Date of Institution : 14.07.2008
Date on which judgment was reserved : 08.04.2015
Date of Pronouncing judgment : 15.04.2015
Suit for Recovery of Rs. 4,84,589/ with Costs, Expenses,
Pendentelite and Future Interest @ 12.25 % p.a.
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this suit of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) which it filed against M/s Ghunghat The Design House and Sh. J.P. Sharma (hereinafter referred as defendant no. 1 and 2 respectively) for recovery of Rs. 4,84,589/ with Costs, Expenses, Pendentelite and Future Interest @ 12.25 % p.a.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff bank is a Corporate Body constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955. It has various branches/offices through out India including one Stressed Assets Resolution Centre (hereinafter called SARC) at 23, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Sh. M.K. Kalra Chief Manager/Principle Officer of SARC is duly authorised to sign SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 2 of 24 and verify the plaint vide notification published in the Gazette dated 27.03.1987.
3. It is pleaded that plaintiff bank introduced/established SARC to deal exclusively with Non Performing Assets Accounts (NPA) of the branches of plaintiff bank for reconstructing of the borrower and recovery of amount. It is pleaded that Shri Vishal Sharma proprietor of defendant no. 1 approached plaintiff bank for seeking financial assistance by way of Cash Credit Limit to run his business activities under the name and style of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave at C41, Madhu Vihar, Delhi. Plaintiff bank considered his proposal and released the Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 2.00 lacs to proprietor of defendant no. 1 on 25.06.2003 so he executed documents in favour of plaintiff bank on that day. It is further pleaded that plaintiff bank secured the Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs by hypothecation of goods in stock and also took third person guarantee of defendant no. 2. It is further pleaded that proprietor of defendant no. 1 subsequently shifted business activity to 87B, Gali No. 15, Madhu Vihar, Patparganj, Delhi92 and he again approached and requested the plaintiff bank for enhancement of Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 3 of 24 2.50 lacs. Plaintiff bank enhanced the Cash Credit Limit upto Rs. 2.50 lacs on 18.05.2004 subject to execution and signing of fresh loan documents and defendants had opened Cash Credit Limit A/C No. 30009971550 in the name of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave. Thereafter both defendants again executed and signed various documents in favour of plaintiff bank on 18.05.2004.
4. Further it is pleaded that proprietor of defendant no. 1 changed the name of firm from M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Ghunghat The Design House and also changed the place of his business activities at L29, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92 and therefore defendants had voluntarily executed D.P. Note for Rs. 2,50,000/, Agreement for Hypothecation of goods (Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,50,000/), Form I Special (Guarantee Agreement) (For Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 2,50,000/) in favour of plaintiff on 16.07.2005. It is further pleaded that after giving credits for all the sums of money paid by the defendants including part payments if any, plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 3,63,927/ including interest as on date and further interest accrued thereon w.e.f. 01.03.2007 to 30.06.2008 i.e. Rs. 64,389/ making total of Rs. 4,28,316/. SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 4 of 24
5. Further it is also pleaded that defendants requested plaintiff bank for grant of Term Loan Facility of Rs. 40,000/ for revival of the unit which was sanctioned by the bank on 16.07.2005. The defendants had opened Term Loan A/C No. 30003365375 in the name of M/s Ghunghat The Design House so defendants had also executed agreement for hypothecation of goods and guarantee agreement in favour of plaintiff on 16.07.2005. It is further pleaded that after giving credits for all the sums of money paid by the defendants including the part payments if any, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.43,923/ including interest as on date and further interest accrued thereon w.e.f. 01.03.2006 to 30.06.2008 i.e. Rs. 12,350/ making total of Rs.56,273/.
6. It is further pleaded that plaintiff also extended its charge over the property measuring 93.33 sq. yds. at plot no. 3, Khasra No. 16/953 & 1675/953, Mohan Park, BlockA, West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92 which was mortgaged to SBI Faridabad in connection to housing loan granted to the defendant no. 2 and second charge of the plaintiff is duly registered with the SBI, Faridabad branch of plaintiff bank SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 5 of 24 against above advances. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor to the defendant no. 1 in both the accounts and he also executed documents so he is severally and jointly liable to pay the amount. It is also pleaded that defendants committed default in payment of loan amount so plaintiff bank served legal notice upon defendants thereby calling them to clear the outstanding dues but no avail. Hence plaintiff filed instant suit to recover amount dues against cash credit limit i.e. Rs. 4,28,316/ and Term Loan account i.e. Rs. 56,273/ making total of Rs. 4,84,589/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 12.25% p.a. with monthly interest.
7. Summons for settlement of issues were served upon both the defendants. They filed their common written statement stating therein that suit is barred by limitation as they never signed the alleged documents on 16.07.2005. The alleged documents purported to have been signed by them have been fabricated and implanted to bring the present suit within the period of limitation. It is further pleaded that suit has not been filed by authorized person because Sh. M.K. Kalra is not authorized to sign and verify the plaint. Further defendants stated that Suit is SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 6 of 24 not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and plaintiff filed the instant suit with malafide intention to harass them. Defendants further stated that plaintiff has made wrong statements on fact and also filed certified documents which have been tempered with intentionally. On merit, defendants admitted that proprietor of defendant no. 1 got cash credit limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs on 25.06.2003 and further he made request for enhancing the cash credit limit from Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs which was accepted by plaintiff bank on 18.05.2004. Further defendants admitted that proprietor of defendant no. 1 changed the name of his business firm M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Ghunghat The Design House and shifted from Madhu Vihar to Laxmi Nagar. Further defendants also admitted that proprietor of defendant no. 1 applied to plaintiff bank for grant of term loan facility of Rs. 40,000/ and the said facility of term loan was granted in the month of March, 2005. Defendants have pleaded that their signatures were obtained on blank documents which were never filled by them nor completed in their presence. Further defendants pleaded that there was no occasion for them in July, 2005 to execute documents for enhancement of cash credit limit from SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 7 of 24 Rs.2.00 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs because same already stood enhanced in the month of May, 2004. Defendants further alleged that their blank signed documents have been utilised by plaintiff bank through its official fraudulently with intention to prove the present suit within the period of limitation. Defendants further alleged that loan of Rs. 40,000/ purported to have been granted by the plaintiff bank in the month of July, 2005 was in fact sanctioned in the month of March, 2005. The documents alleged by plaintiff bank to have been executed by them in the month of July, 2005 were infact blank documents which were obtained by the bank at the time of sanction of loan of Rs. 40,000/ in the month of March, 2005. Accordingly defendants prayed for dismissal of suit with cost.
8. Replication filed wherein plaintiff denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made by it in the plaint.
9. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 12.01.2009:
(i) Whether the present suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD) SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 8 of 24
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.4,84,589/ from defendant? (OPP)
(iii) Whether plaintiff is also entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? (OPP)
(iv) Relief.
10.It is pertinent to mention that on application of defendants U/O 14 Rule 5 CPC, one additional issue was also framed vide order dated 07.12.2009 which is as under: Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by duly authorized person?
11. To prove its case, plaintiff examined its Chief Manager Sh. M.K. Kalra as PW1.
12.PW1 led his evidence on affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He generally deposed on the same lines of plaint and he proved Gazette Notification published on 27.03.1987 as Ex. CW1/A, Application Form as Ex. PW1/1, D.P. Note of Rs. 2.00 lacs dated 25.06.2003 as Ex. PW1/2, D.P. Note delivery letter dated 25.06.2003 as Ex. PW1/3, Arrangement Letter dated 25.06.2003 as Ex. PW1/4, Agreement for hypothecation of goods dated 25.06.2003 as Ex. SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 9 of 24 PW1/5, Form I Special dated 25.06.2003 as Ex. PW1/6, D.P. Note for Rs. 2,50,000/ dated 18.05.2004 with endorsement on its back by defendant no. 2 as Ex. PW1/7 & Ex. PW1/8 respectively, D.P. Note Delivery letter dated 18.05.2004 signed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 as Ex. PW1/9, D.P. Note Delivery letter dated 18.05.2004 signed by defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff bank as Ex. PW1/10, Arrangement Letter dated 18.05.2004 as Ex. PW1/11, Agreement for hypothecation of goods dated 18.05.2004 as Ex. PW1/12, Form I Special dated 18.05.2004 as Ex. PW1/13, D.P. Note dated 16.07.2005 for Rs. 2,50,000/ as Ex. PW1/14, Agreement for hypothecation of goods dated 16.07.2005 for cash credit limit of Rs. 2,50,000/ as Ex. PW1/15, Form I Special dated 16.07.2005 as Ex. PW1/16, Agreement for hypothecation of goods dated 16.07.2005 for Term Loan of Rs. 40,000/ as Ex. PW1/17, Guarantee Agreement dated 16.07.2005 as Ex. PW1/18, Legal Notice dated 09.07.2008 as Ex. PW1/19, Postal Receipts as Ex. PW1/20 & Ex. PW1/21, Certificate of Posting as Ex. PW1/22, Statement of Account as Ex. PW1/23, Certificate of Accrued Interest as Ex. PW1/24 and Certificate of Accuracy Account as Ex. PW1/25. SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 10 of 24
13.After examination of plaintiff witness, defendants examined themselves i.e. Sh. Vishal Sharma, Proprietor of defendant no. 1 as DW1 and defendant no. 2 as DW2.
14.DW1 and DW2 led their evidence on affidavit Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW2/A respectively. DW1 and DW2 generally deposed on the same lines of their written statement and their deposition in Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW2/A are one and same.
15.I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel for plaintiff and defendants and perused the material placed on record.
16.My issuewise findings are as under: Additional Issue Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by duly authorized person?
(a)PW1 deposed that he being Chief Manager posted in SARC of plaintiff bank has singed and verified the plaint and instituted the suit on behalf of plaintiff bank. PW1 also deposed that he is competent and authorized to sign and SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 11 of 24 verify the pleadings, deed and other things which are necessary for the proper conduct of instant suit as per the General Regulations framed by RBI r/w notification published in Gazette on 27.03.1987 Ex. CW1/A. The aforesaid testimony of PW1 is unchallenged as he was not cross examined by defendants. Further PW1 during his cross examination deposed that Chief Manager of SARC authorized vide notification already on record to initiate legal action by filing the instant case. Notification Ex. CW1/A authorized the Manager of plaintiff bank to sign the documents in discharge of functions of the post. There is no suggestion of defendants that PW1 has no power to sign the plaint and institute the instant suit.
(b)In view of above, I am of considered opinion that plaint has been signed and verified and institute by duly authorized person i.e. PW1. Accordingly the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue no. (i) & (ii) Whether the present suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD) SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 12 of 24 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.4,84,589/ from defendant? (OPP)
(a)Both the issues are interconnected and intermixed hence they are taken up together for disposal.
(b)Ld. Counsel for defendants contended that plaintiff has obtained the signatures of proprietor of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 on blank documents which were later on filled by the plaintiff's official. Ld. counsel for defendants further contended that plaintiff bank enhanced the cash credit facility on 18.05.2004 and granted term loan of Rs. 40,000/ in March, 2005 so there was no occasion to defendants to sign any document in July, 2005 hence documents pertaining to July, 2005 are forged and fabricated by the plaintiff's official to bring the suit within period of limitation. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendants relied upon Canara Bank v/s Vara Trading Co. & Ors. I (2007) BC 541 (DB).
(c)The facts which are admitted and not disputed are: SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 13 of 24 I. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 earlier used to run his business in the name of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave, II. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 obtained cash credit limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs being proprietor of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave from plaintiff on 25.06.2003, III. On request of proprietor of defendant no. 1, plaintiff enhanced the cash credit facility of Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs on 18.05.2004, IV. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 changed the name of his firm M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Gunghat The Design House, V. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 also obtained term loan facility of Rs. 40,000/ from plaintiff for revival of his unit, VI. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 admitted their signatures at respective places of loan documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/18.
VII.Proprietor of defendant no.1 is the son of defendant no. 2.
VIII.Defendant no. 2 is an exemployee of plaintiff bank.
(d)It is not in dispute that proprietor of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 executed loan documents on 25.06.2003 SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 14 of 24 when cash credit limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs was sanctioned by plaintiff. It is also not disputed that on 25.06.2003 agreement of hypothecation of goods Ex. PW1/5 for cash credit limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs was signed by defendant no. 1 whereas guarantee agreement Ex. PW1/6 was signed by defendant no. 2. Both Ex. PW1/5 and PW1/6 are on stamp papers of Rs. 50/ each which was purchased on 24.06.2003.
(e)Further it is not in dispute that proprietor of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 executed loan document on 18.05.2004 when cash credit limit was enhanced to Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs. It is also not disputed that on 18.05.2004 Agreement of hypothecation of goods Ex. PW1/12 for cash credit limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs was signed by defendant no. 1 whereas guarantee agreement Ex. PW1/13 was signed by defendant no. 2. Both Ex. PW1/12 and PW1/13 are on stamp papers of Rs. 50/ of description (Rs.20, 20 & 10). All these stamp papers were purchased on 14.05.2004.
(f) PW1 deposed that defendant no. 1 changed the name of his firm M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Ghunghat The SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 15 of 24 Design House and has been carrying his business at Laxmi Nagar so defendants have executed and signed voluntarily and consciously documents on 16.07.2005 i.e. D.P. Note which is in the name of defendant no. 1 Ex. PW1/14, Agreement of hypothecation of goods for cash credit limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs Ex. PW1/15, Guarantee agreement signed by defendant no. 2 Ex. PW1/16. All bears the date as 16.07.2005.
(g)DW1 and DW2 both deposed that defendant no. 1 only shifted the place and trade name of the business so there was no occasion for them to sign the documents in July, 2005 as plaintiff bank already enhanced the cash credit limit of defendant no. 1 from Rs. 2.00 lac to 2.50 lacs in the month of May, 2004 and therefore plaintiff bank obtained their signatures on blank documents. Now onus is upon the defendants to prove that they were made to sign the documents Ex. PW1/14, Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16 in May, 2004 when it were blank.
(h)It is admitted that the cash credit limit was enhanced when proprietor of defendant no. 1 was doing his business in the SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 16 of 24 name of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave. It is also admitted that subsequently defendant no. 1 changed the name of his firm i.e. M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Ghunghat The Design House. So under these circumstances defendants were certainly required to execute fresh documents in favour of plaintiff to discharge its liability. PW1 deposed that defendants executed these documents i.e. Ex. PW1/14, Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16 on 16.07.2005. The documents bear the date of execution as 16.07.2005. Defendants claimed that they were made to sign the blank documents in May 2004 and the said documents were filled later on by plaintiff's official. Admittedly, it is not the case of defendants that their signatures were obtained by force or fraud. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Aggarwal Steel VIII (2009) SLT 15 held that "In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signatures on document can ever be accepted."
(i) Further Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Corporation Bank vs. Sushil Enterprises 2004(1) I.S.J (Banking) 160 held that SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 17 of 24 "These issues are being taken together as they are inter linked and interdependent. The pleas set up by defendant are common pleas. Nobody is expected to sign the documents without reading it or when it is blank and if he does so he does at his own risk and the very fact that the plaintiff Bank has disbursed the loan amount and defendants had availed it also shows that the documents were valid and duly executed. The admission of the signatures of the defendant no. 1 upon the documents in question raises a presumption that the documents were duly filled in when these were signed. Had the defendants not availed the loan amount and had the payment of the machinery purchased by defendant no. 1 not been made by the plaintiff, the aforesaid plea of signing the documents when theses were blank might have cut ice, not otherwise. The lining of both these issues are therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
(j) Both Ex. PW1/15 and PW1/16 are on stamp papers of Rs.
50/ each. The stamp paper of defendant no. 1 and 2 issued vide serial no. 22641 and 22640 respectively. Both the stamp papers were purchased on 14.02.2005. During cross examination, DW1 voluntarily deposed that he signed the documents in the year 2004 whereas DW2 deposed that he executed documents in March, 2005. It is pertinent that DW1 and DW2 in their evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A & Ex. DW2/A respectively deposed that they were made to sign SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 18 of 24 blank documents before the enhancement of cash credit limit from Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs. The testimony of DW1 & DW2 regarding execution of documents Ex. PW1/14, PW1/15 and PW1/16 are contradictory. It is pertinent to mention that proprietor of defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant no. 2 who is an exemployee of plaintiff bank, so it is hard to believe that the defendants were made to sign on blank documents by plaintiff's officials. Further it is pertinent to mention that DW1 admitted during his cross examination that his father had brought the stamp paper which were part of agreement or guarantee for time to time. So if Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16 executed on stamp papers on 14.02.2005 then how could plaintiff got their signature on these stamp papers in the year 2004. In view of this, the case law relied by Ld. Counsel for defendants is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
(k) In view of above discussion, defendants have failed to prove that plaintiff's officials obtained their signatures on documents Ex. PW1/14, PW1/15 and PW1/16 in May 2004 when it were blank and later on, they filled said documents. SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 19 of 24
(l) PW1 deposed that term loan of Rs. 40,000/ was granted to defendant no.1 who executed agreement for hypothecation of goods Ex. PW1/17 on 16.07.2005 whereas defendant no. 2 executed guarantee agreement Ex. PW1/18 on very same day. Both Ex. PW1/17 and PW1/18 were executed on stamp paper of Rs. 50/ each. The stamp paper of defendant no. 1 and 2 issued at serial no. 22641 and 22640 respectively. Both are of dated 14.02.2005. The guarantee agreement Ex. PW1/18 reveals that it was executed in favour of plaintiff who advanced Rs. 40,000/ to proprietor of defendant no. 1 for purchase of sewing and embroidery machines. Admittedly defendants have not disclosed when defendant no. 1 had purchased the sewing and embroidery machine. Certainly same were purchased after getting the advance amount from the plaintiff bank. So under these circumstances, plaintiff bank has proved that it advanced the term loan of Rs. 40,000/ to defendant no. 1 for purchase of machinery in the year March, 2005 however documents in that regard which is hypothecation of goods agreement and SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 20 of 24 guarantee agreement Ex. PW1/17 and Ex. PW1/18 respectively were executed on 16.07.2005.
(m)In view of aforesaid discussion, it has been established that all the documents were valid and duly executed by the defendants and their defence that their signatures were obtained on blank documents is nothing but a feeble attempt to escape the liability. Documents Ex. PW1/14 to Ex. PW1/18 shows that the plaintiff has a valid cause of action against the defendants to institute this suit. All the aforesaid documents were executed on 16.07.2005 and the suit was instituted on 14.07.2008. So suit has been filed within the period of limitation.
(n)Defendant no. 2 admitted during his cross examination that whenever loan documents have been executed by defendant no. 1, he stood guarantor to the defendant no. 1 and had executed the guarantee agreements i.e. Ex. PW1/6, PW1/13, PW1/16 and PW1/18. DW2 admitted his signatures on guarantee agreements. Under these circumstances, plaintiff has successfully proved that SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 21 of 24 defendant no. 2 stood guarantor for liability that is outstanding against defendant no. 1 in respect of cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/ which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/ and for term loan facility of Rs. 40,000/.
(o)PW1 has proved the statement of accounts Ex. PW1/23 showing that it was duly maintained in the books of accounts of the plaintiff Bank in usual and ordinary course of business and is admissible document under Bankers Books Evidence Act. The defendant has not pointed out any wrong entry in the statement of account. Further they have not pleaded that any part payment made by them have not been reflected in the statement of account of defendant. Statement of account Ex. PW1/23 is pertaining to cash credit limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs and for term loan of Rs. 40,000/. A sum of Rs. 3,63,927/ were due as on 28.02.2007 and by adding interest Rs. 64,389/ w.e.f. 01.03.2007 to 30.06.2008 @ 12.25% p.m. A sum of Rs. 4,28,316/ become due to the plaintiff as on date of filing of the suit regarding cash credit limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs. Whereas a sum of Rs. 43,923/ were due in regard to SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 22 of 24 term loan of Rs. 40,000/ as on 28.02.2007 and by adding interest Rs. 12,650/ w.e.f. 01.03.2007 to 30.06.2008 @ 12.25% p.m. A sum of Rs. 56,273/ become due to the plaintiff as on date of filing of the suit.
(p)In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that suit has been filed within limitation period and total amount due against defendants for cash credit limit and term loan upto date of filing of the suit is of Rs.4,84,589/. Accordingly, issue no. 1 decided against defendants whereas issue no. 2 decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no. (iii) Whether plaintiff is also entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? (OPP)
(a)Plaintiff has claimed the interest at the flat rate of 12.25% per annum but the fact remains that plaintiff claimed different rate of interest as Rs.10.10 p.a. in Ex. PW1/4, Rs.10.25 p.a. in Ex. PW1/14 and Rs.10.25 p.a. in Ex. PW1/17. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the rate of interest keeps on changing. So considering the fact and circumstances of the SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 23 of 24 case and present economic scenario, I am of considered opinion that interest of justice would be met by awarding interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount.
RELIEF
17. In view of aforesaid discussion, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 4,84,589/ along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of institution of suit till its realization. Cost of suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
18.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open court on 15.04.2015 (Ravinder Singh1) Addl. District Judge08(Central), Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 24 of 24