Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs M/S Sri Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co Through ... on 8 July, 2025
CS (Comm) 656/2022 Canara Bank Vs. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW010078172022
Civil Suit (Comm.) 656/2022
In the matter of:
Canara Bank
Having Head Off. At : 112 JC Road,
Bangalore-560002.
And its Branch office : Plot No.110, Pocket-27,
Sec-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Through :
AR Ms. Neetu Madan, Branch Manager
.....Plaintiff
(Through Sh. Anshuman Shrivastav, Advocate)
Versus
M/s. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.,
Through its Prop. Sh. Pankaj Kr. Shrivastav,
Factory at D-228, Sec-3, DSIIDC, Bawana,
Indl. Estate Bawana, Delhi-110039.
.....Defendant
(Defendant already ex parte vide order dt. 25.02.2025)
Date of Institution of Suit : 17.09.2022
Date of hearing final arguments : 08.07.2025
Date of judgment : 08.07.2025
Suit for recovery of Rs.16,16,518.51 (Rupees sixteen lacs sixteen thousand
five hundred eighteen and Paise fifty one only) with pendente lite and
future interest
Page 1 of 6
CS (Comm) 656/2022 Canara Bank Vs. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT:
1.This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant, thereby seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.16,16,518.51 (Rupees sixteen lacs sixteen thousand five hundred eighteen and Paise fifty one only) with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that plaintiff is a company duly incorporated in terms of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaings) Act, 1970 (Act 3 of 1970) having its Head office at 112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002, Karnataka and one of its Branch office at Plot No.110, Pocket-27, Sec-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
3. (i) It is the case of plaintiff that on 04.02.2017, defendant approached it for grant of credit facility under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna (PMMY) for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet its working capital requirements. After considering the request of defendant, plaintiff sanctioned said facility on 08.02.2017 and defendant agreed to repay the sanctioned amount along with interest @ 9.75%. Defendant executed the requisite documents in this regard.
(ii) The defendant again approached plaintiff for renewal of the aforesaid credit facility vide application dated 08.02.2019. The defendant again executed the requisite documents. After considering the request of defendant, plaintiff renewed the aforesaid credit facility with interest @ 10% per annum. It is further stated that in pursuance to the Page 2 of 6 CS (Comm) 656/2022 Canara Bank Vs. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.
Circular of RBI dated 01.01.2019 regarding restructuring of MSME advances, plaintiff signed some agreements for restructuring of the aforesaid loans on 26.09.2019. It is further stated that initially, defendant was making repayment regularly but thereafter, it did not follow the financial discipline and became irregular in repayment of the loan amount. Therefore, account of the defendant was declared as NPA on 31.12.2019. It is further stated that as per the Statement of account being maintained by plaintiff in respect of the loan account account of defendant, a sum of Rs.16,16,518.51 was reflected as outstanding inclusive of interest debited upto 31.05.2022 along with interest @ 10.10% p.a. compounded with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest.
4. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. After filing of the suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued against the defendant vide order dated 09.11.2022. The defendant was served and despite repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded "ex-parte" vide order dated 25.02.2025 and the matter was notified for ex-parte PE.
6. The plaintiff during the course of ex-parte evidence examined its Authorised Representative Sh. Vinay Kumar as PW1 in the matter. PW1 in the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated the averments Page 3 of 6 CS (Comm) 656/2022 Canara Bank Vs. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.
made in the plaint and has proved on record the following documents :-
Sr. Description of documents. Remarks No. 1. Copy of authority letter dt. 22.07.2024 Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) 2. Copy of Loan application form Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) 3. Copy of sanction dt. 08.02.2017 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR)
4. Copy of letter evidencing execution of documents Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) dt. 08.02.2017
5. Copy of letter of proprietorship agreement dt. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) 08.02.2017
6. Copy of Pronote dt. 08.02.2017 Ex.PW1/6 (OSR)
7. Copy of Cash Credit Agreement dt. 08.02.2017 Ex.PW1/7 (OSR)
8. Copy of request for OD facilities dt. 08.02.2017 Ex.PW1/8 (OSR)
9. Copy of letter of undertaking dt. 08.02.2017 Ex.PW1/9 (OSR)
10. Copy of certificate of loan papers dt. 08.02.2017 Ex.PW1/10 (OSR)
11. Copy of application of renewal of working capital Ex.PW1/11 (OSR) limit dt. 08.02.2019
12. Copy of letter evidencing execution of documents Ex.PW1/12 (OSR) dt. dt. 08.02.2019
13. Copy of letter of proprietorship agreement dt. Ex.PW1/13 (OSR) 08.02.2019
14. Copy of Pronote dt. 08.02.2019 Ex.PW1/14 (OSR)
15. Copy of request for OD facilities dt. 08.02.2019 Ex.PW1/15 (OSR)
16. Copy of letter of undertaking dt. 08.02.2019 Ex.PW1/16 (OSR)
17. Copy of letter of renewal dt. 08.02.2019 Ex.PW1/17 (OSR)
18. Certificate of loan papers dt. 08.02.2019 Ex.PW1/18 (OSR)
19. Certificate of Non-starter report Ex.PW1/19
20. Statement of loan account No.5868261000004 Ex.PW1/20
21. Certificate in terms of Sec. 63(3) of BSA, 2023 Ex.PW1/21 Page 4 of 6 CS (Comm) 656/2022 Canara Bank Vs. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.
7. Thereafter, ex-parte PE in the matter was closed vide order dated 02.04.2025.
8. I have heard Sh. Anshuman Shrivastav, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
9. From the perusal of Application Forms for loan(s) applied, it is clearly evident that defendant had approached the plaintiff and applied for the aforesaid loan(s). The execution of necessary/requisite documents between the parties in this regard has been duly proved on record by plaintiff.
10. The defendant being ex-parte, the testimony of the plaintiff's witness has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff's witness or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on record.
11. From the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 in the matter and the documents proved by it on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to make out a good case for passing of decree in its favour. As regards the quantum of interest, the transaction between the parties being commercial in nature, I am of the considered opinion that interest @ 12% per annum would meet the ends of justice.
Page 5 of 6CS (Comm) 656/2022 Canara Bank Vs. Oam Yogeshwar Trading Co.
12. In view of the above, a decree in the sum of Rs.16,16,518.51 (Rupees sixteen lacs sixteen thousand five hundred eighteen and Paise fifty one only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from 31.05.2022 till recovery is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit. Plaintiff is further entitled to counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/-.
14. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly, subject to payment of requisite court fees, if any.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities. VINOD Digitally signed by Dictated & Announced in the YADAV VINOD YADAV (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 08.07.2025. District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts Page 6 of 6