Delhi District Court
M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. vs Chaman Lal on 4 July, 2014
M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal
CS48/12
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:JSCCCUMASCJ
CUMGUDN. JUDGE (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd.
Through its AR
Sh. Sanjay Tripathi
branch office at
A308, Vijay Vihar, Rithala
New Delhi 110085 .......................... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Chaman Lal
s/o Sh.Bhule Ram
r/o 547, ABlock, Mangolpuri
Delhi110083 ........................defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION :
18.01.2012
DATE OF DECISION :04.07.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.53548/
VALUE OF SUIT : Rs.53548/
COURT FEES PAID :Rs.2900/
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Exparte judgment I proceed to dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs.53548/ (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Five M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 2 Hundred and Forty Eight Only). Through this suit it has been prayed that a decree of Rs. 53548/ alongwith cost of the suit may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
2. As per case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing loan to poor persons and the defendant approached the plaintiff at the branch office of the plaintiff company at A308, Vijay Vihar, Rithala, Delhi85 for getting the housing loan and a loan agreement was executed between the parties on 01.11.10 and the plaintiff granted the loan of Rs. 50,000/ to the defendant vide loan account no. 0000017. It is further alleged that the aforesaid loan was to be repaid in 24 monthly installments of Rs. 2750/. It is alleged that the defendant failed to repay the installments and failed to maintain the financial discipline. It is also alleged that the post date cheques given by the defendant were bounced on presentation and a charge of Rs. 350/ was levied by M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 3 the bank of the plaintiff for one time cheque bounce and the plaintiff was required to pay the cheque bouncing charges to the tune of Rs. 2450/ from the month of January 2011 to April 2011. It is further alleged that the loan agreement between the parties stood terminated vide legal notice at the time of filing of the present suit, the defendant was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 53548/. It is further alleged that the defendant failed to make any payment despite efforts made by the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff issued a legal demand notice dated 07.07.11 and 14.11.11 through registered A.D but despite service of legal notice the defendant failed to make the payment, hence the present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff.
3. The defendant was summoned vide order dated 19.01.12 and he also appeared but he failed to file the written statement and his defence was struck of vide order dated 10.09.12. Later on the M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 4 defendant stopped appearing and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.04.2013.
4. Plaintiff examined Sh. Naveen Kumar Chandra i.e. the AR of the plaintiff company as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the contents of the plaint and documents i.e., copy of the board Resolution and power of attorney as as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B, the registration form dated 14.07.10 vide which the defendant applied for loan and the application cum appraisal form as Ex. PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D, the pronote dated 01.11.10 executed by defendant as Ex. PW1/E, the letter of undertaking as Ex.PW1/F, the notice dated 14.11.11 as Ex. PW1/H, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/I and the loan status report as on 07.10.11 as Ex. PW1/J.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 5
6. In the present matter, plaintiff got examined Sh. Naveen Kumar Chandra AR of plaintiff company as PW1 and his testimony goes uncontroverted, unrebutted, unchallenged and the same is duly corroborated by the documents i.e. the loan registration form, application cum appraisal form, pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff company, letter of undertaking, copy of legal notice and the loan status report. PW1 has categorically stated that a sum of Rs. 53548/ is legally recoverable from the defendant. The suit has been filed well within the period of limitation. I am also satisfied regarding the jurisdiction of this court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff's witness. Hence, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for sum of Rs.53548/ (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eight Only) alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from date of filing of the suit till the date of decree along with future interest @ 6 % per annum in favour of M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 6 the plaintiff and against the defendant. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn and thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (Manish Khurana)
Court on 04.07.2014 JSCCcumASCJcumGudn. Judge
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 7 04.07.2014 Present : Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is exparte vide order dated 20.04.13. Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Manish Khurana) JSCCcumASCJcumGudn. Judge North, Rohini Courts, Delhi 04.07.2014 M/s Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd. Vs.Chaman Lal CS48/12 8 Announced in the open (Manish Khurana) Court on 30.01.2014 JSCCcumASCJcumGudn. Judge North, Rohini Courts, Delhi 30.01.14 Present : Sh. G.D.Sharma Ld counsel for the plaintiff.
The defendant is exparte vide order dated 20.04.2013. Arguments heard. File perused.
Vide my separate exparte judgment announced in the open Court, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
(Manish Khurana) JSCCcumASCJcumGudn. Judge North, Rohini Courts, Delhi 30.01.2014