Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Raman Sharma on 7 February, 2026
In the Court of SCJ-cum-RC, (West District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
CS SCJ No.1337/2025
CNR NO.DLWT03-002219-2025
State Bank of India, a Corporation constituted under the State
Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Central Office/corporate
centre at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400024, one of its local head office at 11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001, one of its branch at Mianwali Nagar, Delhi
and also RACPC situated at A-5, Pearl Best Height-1, Netaji
Subhash Place, New Delhi through Manager Sh. Virender Handa.
through its Authorized Signatory,
..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Raman Sharma,
S/o Sh. Sandeep Sharma,
R/o 171-A, Gali No.7B,
Rajendra Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
2. Sh. Sandeep Sharma
S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram,
R/o 171-A, Gali No.7B,
Rajendra Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
...... Defendants
Date of filing : 04.09.2025
Date of judgment : 07.02.2026
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,62,079/- ALONG WITH INTEREST
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:04:06 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 1/9 recovery of a sum of Rs.2,62,079/- along with interest from the defendants.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. 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. It is a body with perpetual succession and is competent to sue and be sued in its own name. The plaintiff bank is engaged in the business of banking and has various Local Head Offices, including one at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. It also has a branch at Mianwali Nagar, Delhi, and a RACPC situated at A-5, Pearl Best Heights-1, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi, which is under the administrative control of the Local Head Office at New Delhi.
3. It is further averred that Mr. Virender Handa has signed and verified the plaint and has instituted the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. He is presently posted as Manager at the State Bank of India, RACPC, situated at A-5, Pearl Best Heights-1, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. He is fully conversant with the facts of the present suit on the basis of the records maintained by the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of its business and is, therefore, competent to depose regarding the correctness thereof. He is duly competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, applications and execution proceedings, and to institute the present suit and do all such acts as are necessary for the proper conduct thereof, in terms of Regulations 76 and 77 of the State Bank of India Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:04:11 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 2/9 General Regulations, 1955, framed by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 50(3) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the prior approval of the Government of India, read with the notifications published in the Gazette, including the notification dated 27.03.1987.
4. It is further averred that, pursuant to the re-organization of the set-up of the State Bank of India, the RACPC (Retail Assets Central Processing Centre), Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi, has been established by the plaintiff bank to deal exclusively with non-performing asset accounts of the branches of the State Bank of India situated within Delhi/New Delhi, for restructuring of borrowers and recovery of amounts due, etc. Consequently, the NPA accounts of branches throughout Delhi, including the Mianwali Nagar, Delhi branch, have been migrated to the RACPC situated at A-5, Pearl Best Heights-1, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. For all practical purposes, the said RACPC is handling the plaintiff bank's account involved in the present suit. Hence, the RACPC, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi, in place of the Mianwali Nagar, Delhi branch, is filing the present suit; however, the plaintiff remains the State Bank of India.
5. It is further averred that defendant No.1, being a student, and defendant No.2, being the father/co-borrower/guardian/ guarantor of defendant No.1, approached and requested the plaintiff bank at its Mianwali Nagar, Delhi branch for grant of financial assistance by way of an education loan for higher studies of defendant No.1, namely completion of B.Tech (Mechanical & Automation Engineering), a four-year RICHA course Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:04:18 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 3/9 from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, under the SBI Education Loan Scheme. It is submitted that the defendants submitted their identification documents, educational qualifications, proof of residence, income proofs, etc., to the plaintiff bank prior to the sanction of the loan.
6. It is further averred that, considering the proposal and its economic viability, the plaintiff bank processed and sanctioned an education loan to the defendants/co-borrowers to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- on 05.09.2014, which was duly availed of by the defendants. It is submitted that the defendants, inter alia, executed and signed the following documents:
(i) Loan Application;
(ii) Sanction Letter dated 23.08.2014;
(iii) Arrangement Letter dated 05.09.2014;
(iv) Agreement for Term Loan under the SBI Education Loan Scheme dated 05.09.2014;
(v) Annexure-I; and
(vi) Standing Instructions.
7. It is further averred that the defendants agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount at the rate of 13.5% per annum with monthly rests, subject to variation from time to time as per banking guidelines. It is submitted that the loan amount was repayable in 84 EMIs of Rs.4,617/- each, together with interest, until the entire loan amount was fully repaid. It is further submitted that the repayment was to commence after the course period plus one year holiday period or six months after securing employment, whichever was earlier. It is further averred that, in Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:04:24 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 4/9 the event of default in payment of installments, the entire outstanding amount would become due and payable.
8. It is further averred that the defendants duly availed the aforesaid education loan facility by opening Education Loan Account No. 34165248056 with the plaintiff bank at its Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi branch. However, the defendants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and committed repeated defaults in repayment of the loan amount. As a result, the loan account became irregular. It is further submitted that despite completion of higher studies by defendant No.1, the defendants failed to regularize the loan account. The plaintiff bank made repeated demands, issued reminders and notices, and also undertook personal visits through its field staff. Consequently, the loan account was classified as a Non- Performing Asset (NPA) on 20.09.2024, and the plaintiff bank recalled the entire outstanding loan amount along with accrued interest and expenses.
9. It is further averred that, after giving due credit for all amounts paid by defendants No.1 and 2, including part- payments, if any, a sum of Rs.2,62,079/- is recoverable from the defendants, jointly and severally. It is further averred that since the entries in the loan account are numerous and cannot be incorporated in the body of the plaint, the statement of account, duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, is being filed along with a certificate showing interest accrued but not applied.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.07 16:04:35 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 5/9
10. It is further averred that the plaintiff claims interest at the rate of 13.90% per annum from 20.09.2024, calculated up to 06.05.2025, amounting to Rs.27,256/-, computed on a daily basis. The plaintiff bank, in accordance with the guidelines relating to asset classification, classified the defendants' account as a Non-Performing Asset on 20.09.2024, and as per accounting practice, interest is not charged or applied thereafter; however, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest till realization. It is further averred that, due to persistent defaults committed by the defendants, the loan outstanding was recalled by the plaintiff bank by serving a legal notice dated 05.05.2025 upon the defendants through Registered A.D., but to no avail. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery Rs.2,62,079/- along with interest.
11. Summons of the present suit was sent to the defendants, which were served upon the defendants on 13.10.2025, however, despite service defendants failed to appear in the Court and accordingly, vide order dated 27.01.2026 defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
Thereafter, matter was listed for ex-parte PE.
12. In support of its contentions, the plaintiff examined its Manager/Authorized Representative, Sh. Virender Handa as PW-1 and he tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. In his testimony, following documents were exhibited :
1. Ex. PW-1/1 is the true copy of gazette notification of SBI Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:04:41 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 6/9
2. Ex. PW-1/2 is the certificate issue by HRM institute
3. Ex. PW-1/3 is the application for loan signed by the defendants
4. Ex. PW-1/4 is the sanction letter dated 23.08.2014
5. Ex. PW-1/5 is the arrangement letter dated 05.09.2014
6. Ex. PW-1/6 is the agreement for term loan for SBI education loan scheme dated 05.09.2014
7. Ex. PW-1/7 is the annexure -1 dated 05.09.2014
8. Ex. PW-1/8 is the standing instructions dated 05.09.2014
9. Ex. PW-1/9 is the cop of legal notice
10. Ex. PW-1/10 (colly) is the postal receipts
11. Ex. PW-1/11 (colly) is the statement of account duly certified as per banker's books evidence act.
12. Ex. PW-1/12 is the certificate of accrued interest
13. Ex. PW-1/13 is the certificate under section 63 (4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam-2023
14. Mark A is the copy of college ID of defendant no. 1
15. Mark B is the copy of aadhar card of defendant no. 1
16. Mark C copy of PAN card of defendant no. 1
17. Mark D is the copy of election I.D. of defendant no. 2
18. Mark E copy of Pan card of defendant no. 2
19. Mark F copy of electricity bill of defendant no. 2
13. Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was closed and the final arguments were advanced.
ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSION:-
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 16:04:47 Date: 2026.02.07 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 7/9 for the plaintiff and have perused the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
15. Plaintiff in order to prove its case has examined PW1 Sh. Virender Handa, Manager/AR, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. It is apposite to note, that in support of its contentions, the plaintiff has relied upon the document i.e. certified copy of the Gazette of India dated 02.05.1987 as Ex.PW1/1 which was duly stamped. Plaintiff has also relied upon the certificate of HRM institute which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. Plaintiff has further relied upon loan application as Ex.PW1/3, sanction letter dated 23.08.2024 as Ex.PW1/4, letter of arrangement dated 05.09.2024 as Ex.PW1/5 and agreement for term loan under education loan schemes dated 05.09.2014, Annexure-1 dated 05.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/6, annexure-1 dated 05.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/7 and standing instructions dated 05.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/8. Perusal of the said document clearly reveals that on 23.08.2014 plaintiff bank sanctioned, granted and disbursed a term loan/financial assistance of Rs.2.50,000/- to the defendants.
16. Plaintiff has also filed on record the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly.). Perusal of the same reflects, that the statement is for the period running from 08.09.2014 to 24.09.2024 and as per the said document as on 24.09.2024, a sum of Rs.2,33,996.67 was due against the defendants. Plaintiff has also relied upon the certificate of accrued interest which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/12. Further, in order to prove the identity of the Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:04:51 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 8/9 defendants plaintiff has also placed on record the copy of college ID of defendant no.1 as Mark A, copy of aadhar card of defendant no.1 as Mark B, copy of PAN card of defendant no.1 as Mark C, copy of election I.D. of defendant no.2 as Mark D, copy of Pan card of defendant no.2 as Mark E and copy of electricity bill of defendant no.2 as Mark.
17. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also filed on record the certificate under Section 63 (4) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam-2023 as Ex. PW1/13 in support of the computer generated documents relied upon by it.
18. The plaintiff has also placed on record the legal notice which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 along with proof of service i.e. postal receipts as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly.). It is a settled proposition of law that, if a party despite service of legal notices chooses not to reply to the same, the averments of the notice stands admitted. Furthermore, the legal notice along with postal receipts was also sent by plaintiff to the defendants and at this stage inference can be drawn on the basis of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act which states that, "the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and/a private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." The Clause (f) appended to the section clearly states that, "common course of business has been followed in a particular case, implying that where a letter or legal notice as in the present case is sent to the defendant, it would have ordinarily been delivered in the common course of business to the party to whom Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.07 16:04:57 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 9/9 it was addressed."
19. In this case the delivery of the legal notice also stands proved by the postal receipts placed on record of the service of the legal notice.
20. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as Abdul Gaffar vs. DDA 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 249 that if a legal notice is given by a party, the same is not replied and contents not denied then, silence of the notice raises presumption against him. Another judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled as Kalu Ram v Sita Ram 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44 is on the same aspect.
21. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention Section 27 of the General Clauses Act :
"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or "given" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre- paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 observed as Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:05:02 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 10/9 under :
"The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act could profitably be imported in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the direct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the addressee, unless he proves that it was not really served and he was not responsible for such non-service. These were the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case relating to service of notice U/s 138 of NI Act. "
23. Thus, in the backdrop of the facts of the present case and the same being read conjointly with the law reproduced as above, it is clear that the legal notice was sent to defendants by plaintiff and same is Ex.PW-1/9. Despite that the defendants did not reply to the legal notice nor did he make payment of the outstanding amount to the defendants and this goes to establish that defendants does not have any valid defence to make against the contentions of plaintiff.
24. Since the defendants were proceeded ex-parte in this matter, ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff remained uncontroverted and unchallenged, hence, the court finds no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff witness. In view of the un-rebutted and unchallenged oral and documentary ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been able to prove the case as set up in the plaint and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree.
Digitally signed by RICHASHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.07 16:05:08 +0530 CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 11/9
25. In view of the above-detailed discussion, the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,33,996.67 is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally. Plaintiff is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
26. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 16:05:15
+0530
Announced in open court (Richa Sharma)
on 07.02.2026 Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
THC / Delhi /07.02.2026
CS SCJ 1337/2025 State Bank of India Vs. Raman Sharma Page No. 12/9