Delhi District Court
Sh. V. K. Mittal vs Shri Anshul Marwah on 22 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTHWEST)
ROOM NO. 401, 4th FLOOR, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO. 123/2014
STATE BANK OF INDIA
A Body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India
Act (Act 110, XXIII of 1955) having its Central Office
Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and various
branches through out India including one at Rana Pratap
Bagh, Delhi and RACPC (SARC) SBI, Ground Floor, DZO
Building, 11, Sansad Marg, Newe Delhi.
Through :
Sh. V. K. Mittal,
Chief Manager & Principal Officer of RACPC (SARC)
......Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Anshul Marwah,
S/o Sh. Ashok Marwah,
R/o RZF10, Gali No.4,
Mahavir Enclave, Delhi - 110088.
.......Defendant
Date of institution : 16.05.2014
CS No. 123/14 SBI Vs. Anshul Marwah Page 1 of 6
Date of hearing arguments : 22.08.2015
Date of decision : 22.08.2015
JUDGMENT
1 By this Judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,48,328.72/ along with pendentelite and future interest, cost etc. which has been filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant. 2 Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to state few facts. Sh. V. K. Mittal, Chief Manager & Principal Officer of RACPC (SARC), State Bank of India, Ground Floor, DZO Building, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi has signed, verified and instituted this suit on behalf the plaintiff. It is stated that he is well conversant with the facts of the case, filed on the basis of records maintained in its regular course of business and he is capable of deposing about the same. Even otherwise, he is competent on behalf of the plaintiff under Regulation 76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 framed by Reserve Bank of India.
It i alleged that on reorganization of set up of State Bank of India, RACPC (SARC), has been introduced / established by the plaintiff CS No. 123/14 SBI Vs. Anshul Marwah Page 2 of 6 to deal exclusively with the nonperforming assets accounts of the branches of State Bank of India situated within Delhi for restructuring of the borrowers and recovery of the amounts due against the said borrowers etc. Hence the N. P. A. accounts of the Branches through out Delhi have been transferred to RACPC (SARC), which for practical purpose has become the plaintiff including the present suit. Hence, the present suit is being filed by the RACPC (SARC), SBI, Ground Floor, DZO Building, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, however, the plaintiff still remains State Bank of India.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance at Rana Pratap Bagh Branch for the purpose of purchase of car make Hyundai bearing registration number DL10CD5446. At the request of the defendant, a loan of Rs.6,50,000/ was released to the defendant on 21.09.2012 by the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions contained in the documents executed by the defendant viz., agreement of loancumhypothecation dated 21.09.2012 and arrangement letter dated 21.09.2012. The said loan was repayable in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs.10,959/ along with interest at the rate of 10.5 percent per annum and in case of default in payment, the entire due amount shall become payable at once. It is stated that account number 32558438168 was opened in the books of the plaintiff bank at CS No. 123/14 SBI Vs. Anshul Marwah Page 3 of 6 Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. The defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline and terms & conditions of the loan and failed to repay despite service of legal notice dated 23.12.2013. Now a sum of Rs.7,48,328.72/ is due against the defendant as on 25.03.2014. Hence present suit. 3 Summons were sent to the defendants by ordinary post as well as by registered post but the same received back undelivered. Thereafter the plaintiff moved an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for affecting service of summons by substituted mode i.e. by way of publication and the defendant was duly served by way of publication in the newspaper "Statesman" dated 04.03.2015 but despite service by way of publication, the defendant did not appear before the Court and as such vide Order dated 24.03.2015, the defendant was proceeded exparte. 4 In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined one witness named Sh. V. K. Mittal, Chief Manager & Principal Officer of RACPC (SARC) as PW1 and this witness tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A and his oral statement was recorded. He also proved various documents on record viz.,
(i) Ex.PW1/1 loan application form
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 AppraisalcumControl Report CS No. 123/14 SBI Vs. Anshul Marwah Page 4 of 6
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 Agreement of loan cum hypothe cation dated 21.09.2012
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 Arrangement Letter dt. 21.09.2012
(v) Ex.PW1/5 Legal Notice dated 23.12.2013
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 Postal receipts
(vii) Ex.PW1/7 Statement of account
(viii) Mark A Gazette notification
(ix) Mark B Photocopy of RC 5 I have heard Counsel for plaintiff bank and gone through the records carefully.
6 The testimony of PW1 Sh. V. K. Mittal has remained unchallenged and consistent throughout and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his statement.
7 From the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW1 coupled with documents proved on record, I am of view that the plaintiff bank has been successful in proving the case to the effect that the plaintiff granted an loan of Rs.6,50,000/ to defendant for purchasing car make Hyundai bearing registration number DL10CD5446 but the defendant failed to repay such loan despite service of legal notice dated CS No. 123/14 SBI Vs. Anshul Marwah Page 5 of 6 23.12.2013. The plaintiff has also been successful in proving the fact that thereafter the defendant failed to regularize the loan account and as per statement of account of the defendant, duly certified as per Bankers' Book of Evidence Act and thus the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7,48,328.72/ as on date of filing of the suit.
In the circumstances of the case, I pass a decree for recovery in the sum of Rs.7,48,328.72/ in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 10.5 percent per annum till realization of the decretal amount. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (YOGESH KHANNA)
today i.e. 22.08.2015 District & Sessions Judge (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 123/14 SBI Vs. Anshul Marwah Page 6 of 6