Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh Pratap Singh on 21 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH HARGURVARINDER SINGH
JAGGI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 17582/16
State Bank of India
A corporation constituted under
the State Bank of India Act, 1955
(Having its Central office/ Corporate Centre - )
State Bank Bhavan
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-40024
one of its Local Head office at:
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001
one of the branch situated at PBB Hauz Khas
New Delhi
&
Centralised Recovery Branch - TACPC
A-1/24, Janakpuri, New Delhi
(Through its Chief Manager
Mr V.R.Meena)
... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh Pratap Singh
S/o Sh Madan Singh
R/o 5/237, Sector-5
Kamna, Vaishali
Ghaziabad - 201010
Also at:
C-2/420, Sangam Vihar
Delhi, New Delhi - 110062
... Defendant
State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh
CS No. 517582/16
Page 1 of 9
Date of institution of the plaint : 17.09.2016
Date of reserving the judgment : 03.01.2019
Date of pronouncement : 21.01.2019
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit for recovery of ₹6,52,891/- (Rupees Six lakhs fifty two thousand eight hundred and ninety one only) along with interest @10.05% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual realization by the plaintiff.
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case at hand are that the plaintiff is a bank namely, State Bank of India having its central head office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai and the concerned local Head Office including one at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001 and has various branch offices throughout India including one centralized recovery branch known as RACPC and the one relevant to the present case has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court at A - 1/24, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058 (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff bank").
3. The present suit is preferred through the RACPC, Janakpuri, New Delhi, as on reorganization of the plaintiff bank, RACPC deals exclusively with the disbursement of loan, handling and maintaining the paperwork, documentation of the accounts branches within Delhi and also handles the State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 2 of 9 restructuring of the loan and recovery of amounts due to the bank.
4. The present plaint on behalf of the plaintiff bank has been preferred through its duly appointed authorized representative Sh. V.R. Meena, who is posted as Chief Manager at A - 1/24, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058.
5. The suit for recovery of money had been instituted by the plaintiff bank through V.R. Meena, Chief Manager, RACPC Branch, Janakpuri, New Delhi, duly authorized in pursuance of the exercise of power by the Executive Committee of the plaintiff bank under Regulation 76(1) of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 framed under Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The relevant gazette notification dated 27.03.1987 had been placed along with the list of documents by the plaintiff bank.
6. As per the averments in the plaint, the defendant namely, Pratap Singh (hereinafter "defendant") had approached the plaintiff bank on 06.11.2013 at Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi for grant of car loan to the tune of ₹7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) and submitted a duly filled up loan application along with his supporting documents. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff bank acceded to the request made by the defendant and sanctioned financial assistance to the tune of ₹7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 3 of 9 thousand only). It is averred in the plaint that the defendant agreed that the entire amount outstanding shall become payable at once upon default in payment of any installment and/or interest falling due.
7. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant undertook to pay the loan amount in 84 equated monthly installments (EMI) of ₹12,665/- (Rupees Twelve thousand six hundred and sixty five only). The plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount of ₹7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) by opening a loan account No. 33435500404 with plaintiff bank at PBB Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi.
8. Subsequent to the disbursement of the loan amount by the plaintiff bank, the defendant availed and utilized the loan amount but the defendant failed to honor his commitments and pay EMIs and committed regular defaults. The plaintiff bank repeatedly requested the defendant to regularize the loan account but the defendant failed to adhere to the fiscal discipline. Consequentially, the loan account was treated a non- performing asset (NPA) on 08.09.2015.
9. The plaintiff bank through the legal notice dated 20.06.2016 sought payment of ₹6,52,891/- (Rupees Six lakhs fifty two thousand eight hundred and ninety one only) exclusive of accrued interest of ₹45,340/- (Rupees Forty five thousand three hundred and forty only) @ 10.05 %p.a. State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 4 of 9
10. As per the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing the present suit firstly arose on 06.11.2013 when the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan under SBI Scholar loan scheme for a sum of ₹7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs and fifty thousand only) and cause of action further arose many a times when the defendant made intermittent payment in his loan account during 2013- January 2016 but the loan account classified as NPA due to consecutive defaults and violation in terms of agreement and cause of action further arose on 20.06.2016 when the plaintiff served legal notice upon the defendant. Hence, the present suit for recovery of money by the plaintiff bank.
11. The summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant by the Ld. Predecessor of the court. During the course of the pendency of the suit the authorized representative of the plaintiff bank was substituted from V.R. Meena to Nitesh Kumar Dy. Manager, State Bank of India RACPC, F-20, 2 nd and 3rd Floor, Ring Road, South Extn. Part I, New Delhi vide order dated 20.07.2018.
12. The summons for settlement of issues came unserved and ultimately the dasti summons were served upon the defendant on 27.02.2018.
13. On 26.04.2018, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 5 of 9
14. The plaintiff in its ex-parte evidence, tendered its evidence by way of affidavit - Ex.PW1/A. As per the Ex.PW1/A, the plaintiff proved the following documents:
i) Certified true copy of Gazette Notification dated 27.03.1987 is Ex.PW-1/1;
ii) Original Proforma Invoice dated 31.10.2013, is Ex.PW- 1/2;
iii) Car Loan Application Form in original is Ex.PW-1/3;
iv) Appraisal cum control Report in original dated 06.11.2013 is Ex.PW-1/4;
v) Arrangement letter dated 06.11.2013 in original is Ex.PW-1/5;
vi) Loan cum Hypothecation agreement in original dated 07.11.2013 is Ex.PW-1/6;
vii) Vehicle delivery letter dated 06.11.2013 in original is Ex.PW-1/7;
viii) Annexure Car VIII dated 06.11.2013 in original is Ex.PW-1/8;
ix) Annexure I dated 06.11.2013 in original is Ex.Pw-1/9;
x) Office copy of Legal notice dated 20.06.2016 is Ex.PW- 1/10;
State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 6 of 9
xi) Two postal receipts dated 29.06.2016 in original are Ex.PW-1/11 (Colly);
xii) Two courier receipts dated 28.06.2016 in original are Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly);
xiii) Statement of account duly certified as per Banker's Book Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/13;
xiv) Certificate of Accrued Interest is Ex.PW-1/14;
xv) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW- 1/15;
xvi) Photocopy of RC of Hypothecated vehicle is Mark A;
xvii) Photocopy of PAN of defendant is Mark B, and xviii) Photocopy of Election I-card of defendant is Mark C.
15. Sh Gopal Sharma, Ld. counsel advanced arguments for the plaintiff bank. Ld. counsel submitted that the defendant defaulted on the payments EMI for the loan availed by him from the plaintiff bank. Sh Sharma submitted that the loan agreement Ex.PW1/6 was entered on 06.11.2013.
16. The final arguments were concluded by the Sh Gopal Sharma on 03.01.2019. The case record has been perused carefully.
State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 7 of 9
17. In view of the irrefutable averments in the plaint and testimony of the plaintiff's witness, the plaintiff bank has proved that a loan was advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendant and thereafter the defendant has not paid the installments for the car loan agreement availed by the defendant from the plaintiff bank. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of money from the defendant.
18. This court observes that the plaintiff bank is a commercial bank and the loan was advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendant on commercial terms, thus the plaintiff bank is entitled for interest on the amount of ₹6,43,408/- (Rupees Six lakhs forty three thousand four hundred and eight only)@10.05%p.a. from the date of filing of the suit until the date of actual realisation, as a sum of ₹9,483/- (Rupees Nine thousand four hundred and eight three only) is towards penalty on the arrears has been excluded with regard to the interest component.
19. In view of aforesaid discussion and observations, the suit instituted by the plaintiff is decreed for ₹6,52,891/- (Rupees Six lakhs fifty two thousand eight hundred and ninety one only) but the plaintiff bank is entitled for interest @10.05% on the amount of ₹6,43,408/- (Rupees Six lakhs forty three thousand four hundred and eight only) from the date of filing of the suit State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh CS No. 517582/16 Page 8 of 9 i.e. 17.09.2016 until the date of actual realisation along with costs.
20. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by HARGURVARINDER SINGH HARGURVARINDER JAGGI
SINGH JAGGI Date: 2019.01.21 16:10:00
+0530
Pronounced in the open (Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi)
Court on 21.01.2019 Addl. District Judge-02
South West District
Dwarka Courts Complex
New Delhi
State Bank of India v. Pratap Singh
CS No. 517582/16
Page 9 of 9