Delhi District Court
Having Npa Recovery Branch Known As vs Prashant Gupta on 4 November, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT)06, CENTRAL DISTRICT,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Commercial) No. 982/2019
State Bank of India
Having its Central Office/ Corporate Centre at
State Bank Bhavan,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai 440024
Having one of its Local Head Office at:
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi110001
Having one of its Branch at:
Chandani Chowk, Delhi
Having NPA Recovery Branch known as:
RACPC 11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
Prashant Gupta
S/o Sh. Sanjay Gupta
R/o Flat No. 54, Vidya Apatt.
Jwalapuri, Paschim Vihar
Delhi110087
Also at:
C201, Poojari Apartment
Shiv Vihar, Paschim Vihar
Delhi110087
... Defendant
Date of institution of the case - 02.7.2019
Date on which, case received in this Court - 20.8.2020
CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 1/ 9
2
Date on which, judgment have been reserved - 31.10.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 04.11.2022
JUDGMENT:
The present suit for recovery of Rs.6,65,279/ alongwith interest and cost thereon have been filed on behalf the plaintiff State Bank of India against defendant Prashant Gupta.
2. Brief facts as made out from the plaint are that the plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai and is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It has been stated that Ms. Jaya Kumari was authorized representative of the plaintiff bank and was fully conversant with the facts of the case and has been authorized and competent to sign and verify the pleadings, Vakalatnama, Affidavits, applications, execution and file the present suit and to do all such acts as are necessary for the proper conduct of the present suit as per General Regulations, 1955 framed by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 50 (3) of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the prior approval of Government of India read with Notifications published in the Gazette including one dated 27.3.1987. It has been stated that on re organization of setup of the State Bank of India, RACPC (Retail Assets Central Processing Centre) has been introduced/ established by the plaintiff to deal exclusively with the Nonperforming Assets accounts of branches of State Bank of India situated within Delhi/ New Delhi for restructuring of the borrower and recover of the amount due against the borrowers etc., hence the NPA accounts of the branches throughout Delhi have been migrated to RACPC with practical purposes has become the plaintiff bank including the present suit. Hence, RACPC 11, First Floor, CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 2/ 9 3 Parliament Street, New Delhi110001 of the plaintiff bank in place of Chandni Chowk, Delhi branch has filed the present suit, however, the plaintiff remains the State Bank of India only.
It has been further stated that in the defendant had approached and requested the plaintiff bank at its Chandni Chowk, Delhi branch for grant of financial assistance by way of Auto/ Car Loan facility and accordingly, considering the proposal and economic viability, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned and disbursed to the defendant Car Loan amount to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/ on 06.12.2013 for purchasing Skoda Car and the said car loan was secured by hypothecation of vehicle/ car in favour of the plaintiff bank vide car loan account number 62320723683. It is stated that the said loan was to be repaid in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs. 15,345/ along with interest @ 10.60% p.a. It has been further stated that pursuant to the receipt of the loan, the defendant has deposited/ paid loan installment time to time during the period from 2013 to 2017 and the last payment of Rs.30,000/ was deposited by the defendant on 25.10.2017. It has been stated that the defendant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and committed consecutive defaults in repayment of loan agreement as a result of which the loan account became irregular and sticky and has been classified as NPA (Non Performing Asset). It has been further stated that the defendant had failed to improve his account position despite repeated demands, reminders, notices and personal visits of field staff of the plaintiff bank and accordingly, the plaintiff bank recalled the loan facility available to the defendant by serving legal notice dated 27.01.2019. It is further stated that despite the issuance of the abovesaid notice dated 27.01.2019, the defendant has failed to repay the loan amount, which resulted in filing of the present suit, wherein it has been prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs.6,65,279/ alongwith interest @10.20% per annum at month rest till realization and cost may be passed in favour of the plaintiff CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 3/ 9 4 and against the defendant.
3. Upon filing of the present suit, the process had been sent to the defendant and as per record, he has been duly served on 20.10.2020, as is evident from the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
The defendant failed to appear despite service and accordingly, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.3.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
4. During the pendency of the present suit, an application for substitution of AR was moved on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff bank and accordingly, Ms. Ranjana Shukla was substituted as AR of the plaintiff bank in place of Ms. Jaya Kumari vide order dated 09.5.2022.
5. In its exparte PE, the plaintiff bank has examined PW1 Ms. Ranjana Shukla.
6. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute within the meaning of section 2(1) (c) and other applicable provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He further submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff for grant of a loan for purchase of the vehicle and it amounted to a proposal/offer and when the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan, it amounted to the acceptance on the same terms and conditions as proposed by defendant. The plaintiff acceded to the request of the defendant and sanctioned him a CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 4/ 9 5 loan and hence the entire transaction constituted a concluded contract between the parties. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the testimony of the plaintiff's witness has remained unchallenged and unimpugned as the defendant has not come forward to defend the suit despite being duly served. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that the present suit was within the period of limitation and there was no legal impediment in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and he prayed that the present suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
7. I have duly considered the arguments put forward by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff.
8. The present suit for recovery of Rs.6,65,279/ alongwith interest and cost thereon have been filed on behalf the plaintiffM/s ICICI Bank Ltd. against defendant Prashant Gupta.
In order to prove its case on record, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Ms. Ranjana Shukla, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank, who has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff bank was a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai and is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. PW1 has deposed that Ms. Jaya Kumari had signed and verified the plaint and instituted the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank who was then posted as Manager in the State Bank of India, RACPC (Central), 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi and the present case/ account has been migrated from SBI, RACPC (Central), 11, Parliament Street to RACPC, Naraina, New Delhi under internal assessment. PW CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 5/ 9 6 1 further stated that she has been assigned the present case/ account file to pursue the same in the court as authorized representative and she identified the signatures of Ms. Jaya Kumari. PW1 further stated that she was fully conversant with the facts of the present suit and she has been competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings, Vakalatnama, Affidavits, applications, execution and file the present suit and to do all such acts as are necessary for the proper conduct of the present suit as per General Regulations, 1955 framed by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 50 (3) of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the prior approval of Government of India read with Notifications published in the Gazette including one dated 27.3.1987 and she proved the certified true copy of the merger gazette notification dated 22.02.2017 as Ex.PW1/1 and certified true copy of gazette notification dated 27.3.1987 as Ex.PW1/2.
PW1 further deposed that on reorganization of setup of the State Bank of India, RACPC (Retail Assets Central Processing Centre) has been introduced/ established by the plaintiff to deal exclusively with the Nonperforming Assets accounts of branches of State Bank of India situated within Delhi/ New Delhi for restructuring of the borrower and recover of the amount due against the borrowers etc., hence the NPA accounts of the branches throughout Delhi have been migrated to RACPC with practical purposes has become the plaintiff bank including the present suit and hence, RACPC 11, First Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi110001 of the plaintiff bank in place of Chandni Chowk, Delhi branch had filed the present suit, however, the plaintiff remains the State Bank of India only.
PW1 further deposed that in the defendant had approached and requested the plaintiff bank at its Chandni Chowk, Delhi branch for grant of financial assistance by way of Auto/ Car Loan facility and the defendant had submitted his identification and residence proof and she proved the photocopy of insurance of hypothecated vehicle, copy of PAN Card, election ID and copy of family details of the defendant as CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 6/ 9 7 Mark A to Mark D respectively. PW1 further deposed that considering the proposal and economic viability, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned and disbursed to the defendant Car Loan amount to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/ on 06.12.2013 for purchasing Skoda Car and the said car loan was secured by hypothecation of vehicle/ car in favour of the plaintiff bank vide car loan account number 62320723683 and in this regard, the defendant had executed the documents i.e Car Loan Application Form, Terms and conditions dated 06.12.2013, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 06.12.2013 and Consent Clause which were Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/6 respectively.
PW1 further deposed that the said loan was to be repaid in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs. 15,345/ along with interest @ 10.60% p.a. PW1 further deposed that pursuant to the receipt of the loan, the defendant had deposited/ paid loan installment time to time during the period from 2013 to 2017 and the last payment of Rs.30,000/ was deposited by the defendant on 25.10.2017. PW1 further deposed that the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and committed consecutive defaults in repayment of loan agreement as a result of which the loan account became irregular and sticky and has been classified as NPA (Non Performing Asset). PW1 further deposed that the defendant had failed to improve his account position despite repeated demands, reminders, notices and personal visits of field staff of the plaintiff bank and accordingly, the plaintiff bank recalled the loan facility available to the defendant by serving legal notice dated 27.01.2019 and proved the said legal notice as Ex.PW1/7, it's postal receipt and courier receipt as Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 respectively. PW1 has also proved the statement of account containing correct entries and duly certified under the Banker's Books of Evidence, Certificate of accrued interest but not applied, Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and "Non Starter Certificate" issued by Delhi State Legal Service Authority as Ex PW1/10 (Colly) to Ex. PW1/13 respectively.
The important fact is that the aforesaid witness i.e PW1 has not been CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 7/ 9 8 cross examined on behalf of the defendant, who remained absent and was accordingly proceeded against exparte. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW1 has remained uncontroverted and uncontested and I find no reason to disbelieve the said unrebutted evidence of PW1, especially in view of the fact that her evidence has also been corroborated to a large extent by the various documents placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
9. In the instant case, in view of the material on record, it is evident that present suit is apparently within the provisions of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the transaction, which is subject matter of the suit is squarely covered by the definition of a "commercial dispute" within the meaning of section 2(1) (c) of the Commercial Court Act. Further, the evidence in this case is primarily documentary and the documents tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff are the documents maintained by a bank in the ordinary course of its business and these documents can be considered to be duly executed in due course of the business and were capable of binding the parties in to a contractual relationship.
In the present case, the plaintiff bank has claimed the suit amount, which is inclusive of principal amount and interest and in view of the material on record, the plaintiff bank is entitled to the said outstanding amount as the same have been occasioned due to the acts and omissions of the defendant and the same also flow from the contractual relationship as per the terms and conditions settled and forming part of the loan documents.
Hence in view of the above, the plaintiff bank shall be entitled to principal amount of Rs.6,65,279/ along with interest and cost thereon.
In the instant case, the plaintiff will be entitled to interest from the date of institution of the suit till realization. In this case, the plaintiff has claimed interest @10.20% p.a., however, the said rate of interest appears to be on the higher side. In CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 8/ 9 9 these circumstances and in view of the prevalent business practices in the market, in my considered opinion, it will be expedient to grant interest @ 9% per annum and the same also appears to be just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case.
10. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant Prashant Gupta for a sum of Rs.6,65,279/ alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs of the suit as per rules. Certificate of Counsel fee (if any submitted) be taken into consideration while computing the costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
In compliance of the provisions of the Order XX rule 1 of the CPC ( as amended uptodate by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) a copy of this judgment be issued to both the parties to the dispute through electronic mail (if the particulars of the same have been furnished) or otherwise. Digitally signed by PARAMJIT File be consigned to the record room. PARAMJIT SINGH SINGH Date:
2022.11.04 16:11:06 +0530 (Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh) (Court on 04.11.2022) District Judge,(Commercial Court)06 Central District,Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) No. 982/2019 State Bank of India vs. Prashant Gupta page 9/ 9