Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Shiv Narayan Yadav on 11 December, 2024
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West,
Tis Hazari Extension Building, Delhi
CS (COMM) 742/2023
CNR No. DLWT01-008086-2023
State Bank of India
Having Head Office at :-
Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai
Branch Office at :-
Nangloi Chowk Branch
Nangloi, Delhi-110041 ...... Plaintiff
Vs.
Shiv Narayan Yadav
S/o Sh. Sonai Yadav
R/o H.No. E/527, Kidwai Nagar East,
NDMC, South West Delhi-110023.
Also at
H. No. 673, Type-2, Sector-5,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022
Also at
Employee ID No. 0806 (NTRO) (MT Assistant 'A')
National Technical Research Organisation
Government of India
Old JNU Complex, Block No. III,
New Delhi-110067 ..... Defendant
Date of institution : 06.10.2023
Date of arguments : 02.12.2024
Date of judgment : 11.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a 'commercial suit' for recovery of ₹ 7,44,767/- (₹ Seven Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Seven) with interest sought @ 15% per annum from 08.09.2023 till realization.
2. The dispute between the parties is a 'commercial dispute' within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA), being a dispute arising out of a transaction of banker/financer. Pre-
Judgment dated 11.12.2024; CS (COMM) 742/2023; CNR No. DLWT01-008086-2023; State Bank of India Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav Page 1 of 5 2 institution Mediation & Settlement between the parties remained unsuccessful vide a Non-Starter Report dated 08.06.2023 of the concerned District Legal Services Authority.
3. The sole defendant of this case remained ex-parte in the matter. He was served by way of publication, after service upon the defendant at all of his three addresses could not be effected. The first address of the defendant was found to have been demolished. The second address was found locked and that the summons were affixed at the second address. From the office address, the defendant was learnt to have already been dismissed from the services. The defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 18.09.2024. The defendant never appeared in the suit to contest the matter at any stage.
4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff bank extended a Personal Loan (Xpress Credit) of ₹ 6,60,000/- (Six Lakh Sixty Thousand) vide Loan Application dated 12.07.2019 and the corresponding sanction on 15.07.2019. The defendant executed various necessary documents viz., Loan Application dated 12.07.2019 along with KYC & other relevant document; Sanction Letter dated 15.07.2019; Letter of Arrangement dated 15.07.2019; Personal Loan Agreement (Xpress Credit); S.I. dated 15.07.2019; Letter of communication dated 17.07.2019 & 15.12.2021, while obtaining the loan. The loan was repayable in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of ₹ 14,682/- each. The defendant additionally agreed to pay the floating interest @ 3.5% above MCLR, i.e. 8.5% with monthly rests. The defendant failed to repay the loan. The loan account no. 38606922041 of the defendant became NPA on 29.07.2021. Legal notices dated 08.09.2021 & 18.02.2023 sent to the defendant remained unanswered. As per the plaintiff, outstanding amount excluding the accrued interest is ₹ 5,56,795/-; and accrued interest as on 07.09.2023 is Judgment dated 11.12.2024; CS (COMM) 742/2023; CNR No. DLWT01-008086-2023; State Bank of India Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav Page 2 of 5 3 ₹ 1,87,972, making the suit amount of ₹ 7,44,767/-. On the said suit amount, the plaintiff prays interest @ 15%.
5. In the ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff examined PW1 Rahul Tanwar, Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank in its favour, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW1/A. The deposition of PW1 is in lines to the averments contained in the plaint. In his evidence the plaintiff witness exhibited following documents viz., Xpress Credit Loan Application Form Ext. PW1/1; Sanction Letter Ext. PW1/2; Arrangement Letter Ext. PW1/3; Personal Loan Agreement Ext. PW1/4; Remittance Report Ext. PW1/5; Legal notices dated 08.09.2021 & 11.02.2023 along with postal receipts Ext. PW1/8; Certificate U/s 2A of Evidence Act along with statement of account Ext. PW1/9 &; Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ext. PW1/10.
6. As mentioned above the defendant chose not to contest the suit and remained ex-parte. The averments of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as deposition of PW1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7. The suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. The personal loan was repayable in 60 EMIs and the loan was sanctioned on 15.07.2019. As per statement of account Ext. PW1/9, after the defendant was granted the personal loan, the defendant made some part payments in the year 2019 as well as in the year 2020. Last payment was made by him on 14.10.2020. The suit has been filed on 06.10.2023. The period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stood excluded from counting of limitation by virtue of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117. Regarding the issue whether Para 5(I) or Para 5(III) of the said case would apply, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of G4S Secure Solutions (INDIA) Pvt. Limited Vs. Matrix Cellular (INTERNATIONAL) Services Limited Judgment dated 11.12.2024; CS (COMM) 742/2023; CNR No. DLWT01-008086-2023; State Bank of India Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav Page 3 of 5 4 in ARB P. 427/2024 vide order dated 02.04.2024 observed that in the case of M/s Arif Azim Co. Limited Vs. M/s Aptech Limited (2024 INSC
155) Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para no. 84 that the effect of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re Cognizance (Supra) would be that the entire period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 would stand excluded in counting the period of limitation and the balance period of limitation as on 15.03.2020 shall be available to a party w.e.f. 01.03.2022. Therefore, the suit filed on 06.10.2023 is within limitation.
8. This Court also has territorial jurisdiction also, as the loan was extended from the branch located within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court also has pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. There is no legal impediment against decreeing the suit. Accordingly, the suit is entitled to be decreed for a sum of ₹ 7,44,767/-.
10. The question however is, as to the rate of interest for pendente lite and future period. Plaintiff has demanded interest @ 15% per annum, but the said rate of interest is exorbitant.
11. Under section 34 of CPC, in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, and with further interest as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. Where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual Judgment dated 11.12.2024; CS (COMM) 742/2023; CNR No. DLWT01-008086-2023; State Bank of India Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav Page 4 of 5 5 rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced y nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.
12. In this regard, one may place reliance upon the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, wherein it is held in para 3 that Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by the Court.
13. Latest Reserve Bank of India Lending and Deposit Rates of Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs) qua Weighted Average Lending Rate (WALR) on outstanding Rupee loans of SCBs, is 9.91 per cent.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the given facts & circumstances, interest @ 9% per annum, from 08.09.2023 till realization shall meet the ends of justice. The request of the plaintiff to grant penal interest is declined.
15. Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed for a sum of ₹ 7,44,767/- (₹ Seven Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Seven) along with simple interest @ 9% from 08.09.2023 till realisation. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. A copy of the judgment be supplied to the plaintiff as well as the defendant through electronic modes in compliance of Order 20 Rule 1(1) of CPC. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on 11th day of December, 2024. DIG Digitally signed by DIG VINAY SINGH VINAY Date:
2024.12.11 SINGH 12:40:37 +1200 Dig Vinay Singh District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi (r) Judgment dated 11.12.2024; CS (COMM) 742/2023; CNR No. DLWT01-008086-2023; State Bank of India Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav Page 5 of 5