Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Santosh Enterprises on 23 December, 2014

                   IN THE COURT OF DR. ARCHANA SINHA 
          ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL­03) 
                             THC / DELHI

                                    Date of institution of the suit           : 04.06.2014
                                    Date on which order was reserved   : 23.12.2014
                                    Date of decision                          : 23.12.2014

Suit No. 122/2014          Unique Case ID No. 02401C0260542014

M/s ICICI BANK LTD. 
Having its registered office at :
Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara­390007.
Having its Branch Office at :
E­block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan 
Extention, New Delhi - 110055.                    ....Plaintiff
                                                    Versus 
Santosh Enterprises,
Santosh Garg, through its Proprietor,  
H. No. 1340, Sector­9,  
Faridabad  - 121006, Haryana.
Also at.
Plot No.­7, Shop No. ­ 1,  
CNG Filling Station, Bypass Road, 
Faridabad, Haryana.                                      ....Defendant

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,16,740/­ (Rs. Four Lacs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty only).

2. The brief resume of the facts of the case, as set out in the Suit No. 122/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd. V/s Santosh Enterprises Page No.1 plaint, is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated within the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the banking business and was subject to the guidelines and regulations passed by the Reserve Bank of India having its Branch office at E­block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi - 110005.

3. The defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of a loan from the plaintiff bank for purchase of a vehicle namely 'SX4 VXI' bearing registration no. 'HR­29AC­5443' and the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. Rs. 6,60,000/­ on 18.06.2012 to the defendants vide loan agreement dated 11.06.2012 bearing no. LAFDB00026539202 and the borrower/defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 21,850/­ each and the defendant executed several documents i.e. loan agreement, deed of hypothecation & Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff bank and thus, the defendants were bound with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the parties.

4. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant against the loan agreement dated 11.06.2012 bearing no. LAFDB00026539202 maintained by the plaintiff bank has duly received the loan amount, but after receipt of the loan amount, the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the loan amount in monthly installments and defaulted 4 out of 21 installments due on the date of filing of the suit when 15 future installments remained to be paid and an Suit No. 122/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd. V/s Santosh Enterprises Page No.2 arrears of an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,05,129/­ remained due and payable as on 11.04.2012 and that compelled the plaintiff bank to foreclose the entire loan amount in terms of the loan agreement vide loan recall notice dated 11.04.2012 demanding a sum of Rs. 5,70,244/­.

Also that an amount of Rs. 1,02,119/­ towards overdue installments on date along with incidental charges of Rs. 20,948/­ remained due and payable as per statement of account drawn on 24.04.2014 along with future installments but despite loan termination notice, the defendant did not pay any heed and remained defaulter to pay the outstanding amount.

5 Also that some amount approximately 43,700/­ was paid during the period of date of loan termination notice and the date of filing of the suit, thus, such amount has been deducted from the demanded amount and the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,16,740/­ was filed by plaintiff praying for passing a money decree for a sum of Rs. 4,16,740/­ along with an interest @ 24 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.

6. The defendant was duly served by way of publication in two newspapers namely "The Hindu dated 12.11.2014" & "The Mahamedha dated 06.11.2014", but despite due service, the defendant did not cause his appearance in the Court, thus the defendant was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 20.12.2014.

7. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank has examined its AR, Sh. Mohit Grover in support of his claim, who has proved the various documents on record, which are Ex­PW1/1 to Ex­PW1/7 viz:

copy of Power of attorney is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), The copy of original copy of application form is Ex.PW1/2, original copy of credit facility application form is Ex.PW1/3, original copy of unattested deed of hypothecation is Ex.PW1/4, Original copy of irrevocable power of attorney is Ex.PW1/5, office copy of the legal notice is Ex.PW1/6 and certified statement of account along with certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/7(colly).

8. I have meticulously gone through the record and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Sh. Vikas Chopra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, in light of the records.

9. The allegations made by him on his affidavit regarding the loan taken by the defendant and non payment of the outstanding are substantiated by the said documents and the averments made in this regard have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus, the plaintiff has established its claim for the suit amount against the defendant.

10. So far as interest is concerned, an interest @ 24% per annum is claimed, but in view of provisions of section 34 of CPC for the commercial transaction as one in hand, the interest @ 6% per annum is the appropriate rate of interest on the principal sum due.

11. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for:

(i) a sum of Rs. 4,16,740/­ along with

(ii) simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

No order as to costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

                                                         (Dr. Archana Sinha)
Delivered and Announced                  Addl. District Judge (Centl.­03) 
In the open Court                                     Tis Hazari Courts / Delhi
On 23.12.2014                                                    23.12.2014




Suit No. 122/2014                              ICICI Bank Ltd.  V/s Santosh Enterprises                     Page No.5
 Suit No. 122/2014

M/s ICICI BANK LTD. VS. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES

23.12.2014

Present: Ms. Madhuri Katyal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Vide separate detailed judgment of even date announced in the open court today, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed.

No order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.

                                                         (Dr. Archana Sinha)
Delivered and Announced                  Addl. District Judge (Centl.­03) 
In the open Court                                     Tis Hazari Courts / Delhi
On 23.12.2014                                                    23.12.2014




Suit No. 122/2014                              ICICI Bank Ltd.  V/s Santosh Enterprises                     Page No.6