Delhi District Court
Mangal" vs Sh. Wasim Akram on 3 June, 2013
In the Court of Civil Judge04 (South), Saket Court Complex, New Delhi
Presided By : Ms. Ritu Singh
Suit No. 625/10
Unique Case ID no. 02406C0438632010
In the matter of :
Bank of Maharashtra
a bank constituted by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertaking) Act, 1970 (Act No. 5 of 1970) having its head office at "LOK
MANGAL", 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune411005 and South Extension, PartI,
New Delhi110048, amongst other branches spread throughout India.
...............Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Wasim Akram R/o H.No. 1484/2B, Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi11003.
Also At:
Sh. Wasim Karam, 9/A, Amrit Nagar, South Extension, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Mohd. Haroon, R/o H.No. A62, Bapu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi11003.
3. Sh. Abdulaish Mohammad, R/o H.No. 252A, Shahpur Jat, Suit No. 625/2010 1/5 pages Near Khel Gaon, New Delhi110 049. .........Defendants Date of Institution :02.06.2010 Date of Reserving of Judgment :03.06.2013 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment :03.06.2013 EXPARTE J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Bank of Maharashtra, a bank constituted by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 (Act No. 5 of 1970) having its head office at "LOK MANGAL", 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune411005 and South Extension, PartI, New Delhi110048, amongst other branches spread throughout India through Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager and SH. H K Mukherjee, Senior Manager being constituted attorneys of the plaintiff bank against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 2,24,971/ ( Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy One Only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum besides penal interest @ 2 % per annum from the date of institution till the date of realization along with cost.
2. The case of the plaintiff bank is that the defendant no. 1 is the principal Suit No. 625/2010 2/5 pages borrower and defendant no.2 and 3 are the guarantors. Defendant no.1 applied for term loan for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and on his oral request plaintiff bank sanctioned the term loan on 30.10.2007 and the written request letter was later taken on 01.11.2007.
3. In order to avail the loan, defendant no.1 also executed loan documents such as composite deed of hypothecation for all facilities dt. 1.11.2007 and receipt for amount of loan on 3.11.2007 after the loan amount was credited in his savings bank account no. 20075565385. Defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors and executed guarantee deed dt. 1.11.2007.
4. Plaintiff has averred that it holds the first and paramount charge over the hypothecated goods.
5. The loan was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs. 7000/ each along with interest as and when it became due, beginning from 30.11.2007.
6. Thereafter, the loan facility was completely utilized by the defendants but the defendants neglected and failed to repay the loan amount in the equal monthly installments and as such the account became irregular.
7. Plaintiff bank classified the account of the defendant no.1 as NPA (Non Performing Assets) on 30.9.2008.
8. Various reminders were sent to the defendants but to no avail. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendants continued to be irregular in paying the Suit No. 625/2010 3/5 pages installments and legal demand notice under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 10.11.2008 was issued to them for repayment of outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 2,01,358/ and including interests thereupon. However, till date the defendants have failed to clear the outstanding amount.
9. Defendants were served by way of publication in Hindi Daily "Mahamedha" New Delhi Edition dated 05.01.2005 but no appearance was entered. Defendants were therefore proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27.02.2012.
10. Exparte plaintiff evidence was led on 1.8.12. Sh. I P Pasricha, Senior Manager of the plaintiff bank was examined as PW1.
11. PW1 Sh. I.P. Pasricha tendered affidavit Ex. P1 along with following documents:
1. Ex.PW1/1 letter of request
2. Ex.PW1/2 terms of sanction
3. Ex.PW1/3 composit deed of hypothecation for all facilities
4. Ex.PW1/4 receipt for amount of loan
5. Ex.PW1/5 guarantee dated 1.11.2007
6. Ex.PW1/6 notice dated 10.11.2008 Suit No. 625/2010 4/5 pages
7. Ex.PW1/7 certified copy of statement of account
8. Ex.PW1/8 certificate of unapplied interested
9. Ex.PW1/9 certificate by officer of computer system
12. Plaintiff evidence was closed vide a separate statement of the counsel for the plaintiff on
13. Exparte final arguments were heard.
14. This Court has heard the Learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
15. Since, the defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.02.2012, no rebuttal has come against the claims of the plaintiff bank. The oral testimony of PW 1 and the documents have remained uncontroverted. Hence, the suit is decreed for the sum of Rs. 2,24,971/ ( Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy One Only) against the defendants along with cost and pendentelite interest @ 9 % per annum and future interest @ 6 % per annum till realization.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to records.
Announced in the open Court (Ritu Singh)
Dated 03.06.2012 Civil Judge04/South District
New Delhi
Suit No. 625/2010 5/5 pages