Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs M/S Shri Gopal Labels on 17 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 758/09.
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
S.D. Tower, Plot No. 7
Community Centre, Sector8, Rohini,
New Delhi.
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Sidharth Sharma ...Plaintiff.
Versus
M/s Shri Gopal Labels
A85 G/F DDA Shed
Okhla Industrial Area Phase II
Delhi110020
Through its proprietor
Ms. Ritu Sharma
Also at:
C48, 2nd Floor, Parshav Nath Paradise
J.P. Enclave Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad
Parshav Nath Paradise Ghaziabad
New Delhi. ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 13.10.2009.
Date of Arguments : 08.05.2012.
Suit No. 758/09 No. 1 of 5
Date of Judgment : 17.05.2012.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 2,67,160.18p.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,153.16p has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that Sh. Sidharth Sharma is the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank and is authorized to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. It is further stated that the defendant approached and requested the plaintiff bank for the grant of financial assistance in the nature of Overdraft Credit Facility. The plaintiff had agreed to sanction to the defendant, Over Draft Facility for an amount of Rs 2,10,000/ vide loan account no. 031105002683 and the defendant had executed a vide Master Facility Agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 26.04.2006 whereby the defendant accepted to the terms and conditions of the Master Facility Agreement. It is further submitted that by accepting the terms and conditions of the Master Facility Agreement, the defendant had clearly understood that the facility was extended to the defendant, only for 12 months subject to renewal of the same at periodic intervals wherein the facilities may be continued/ cancelled/ reduced depending upon the conduct and utilization of the facilities or Suit No. 758/09 No. 2 of 5 is payable at demand by the plaintiff bank. It is submitted that the plaintiff bank had disbursed a sum of Rs 2,10,000/ assuming the genuineness of the documents submitted by the defendant and the defendant agreed to repay the same in terms of the agreement and had agreed to pay interest @ 3.75% p.a. over the sum of the ICICI Bank Benchmark Advanced rate and the cash credit risk outstanding, plus applicable Interest Tax or other statutory levy, if any. As on date of the agreement Benchmark Advance Rate is 17.75% the cash credit risk premium is 0.50% p.a. and the Applicable Rate Facility is 20% p.a. It is further submitted that after availing the said overdraft limit of Rs 2,10,000/, the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the facility either towards principal or interest or charges thereon and thus, the plaintiff bank was forced to recall the overdraft facility available to the defendant by way of sending a demand notice dated 19.08.2009 to him thereby calling upon the defendant to make payment of Rs 2,48,153.16p along with applicable interest. Despite issuance of legal notice, however, the defendant has failed and neglected to pay the entire dues of the plaintiff bank and hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs 2,48,153.16p.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant. However, when the defendant failed to appear, he was proceeded exparte by my learned predecessor vide order dated Suit No. 758/09 No. 3 of 5 20.05.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its exparte evidence and examined Sh. Anuj Jain, attorney of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Anuj Jain, attorney of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the power of attorney Ex. PW1/A, Application form (Loan) Ex. PW1/B, Master Facility Agreement dated 29.03.2008 Ex. PW1/C, demand notice dated 19.08.2009 Ex. PW1/D, statement of account Ex. PW1/E.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff has become entitled for a decree. As regards the interest, there is a clause that in case of defaults, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. However, considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest @ 11% per annum is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of Rs.2,67,160.18p alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the Suit No. 758/09 No. 4 of 5 plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (PARVEEN SINGH)
on 17.05.2012. ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
(This judgment contains five pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
each page bears my signature.)
Suit No. 758/09 No. 5 of 5