Bangalore District Court
The South Indian Bank Ltd vs M/S Nithin Travels on 28 April, 2025
KABC170025272023
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84)
Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L.,
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.No.1204/2023
Dated on this 28th day of April 2025
Plaintiff/s THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
A Banking Company having its Registered
Office at SIB House, T.B. Road, Thrissur-
680001, Kerala and a Branch office at
No.10/3-1, Ashwa Arcade,
Banaswadi Main Road,
Maruthi Sevanagar,
Bangalore-560033
Rep. by its Principal Officer and Chief
Manager Mr. Divin D.S.
(By Sri Narayana Shenoy, Advocate)
// versus //
Defendant/s 1. M/S NITHIN TRAVELS
A Sole Proprietor concern
Rep. By its Sole Proprietrix
Smt. Leelavathi S,
at No.07/8, Behind Govt. School,
Sorahunase Road, Sorahunase Village,
Varthur Post,
Bangalore -560087
2. Smt. LEELAVATHI S
W/o Sreenivas Reddy
2
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc
KABC170025272023
No.07/8, Behind Govt. School
Sorahunase Road,
Sorahunase village,
Varthur post,
Bangalore-560087
Proprietrix of M/s Nithin travel
(By Sri Eugene Prabhu B, Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 25/10/2023
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 09/08/2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 28/04/2025
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
01 06 03
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against defendant No. 1 & 2, being the proprietorship concern and its proprietrix for recovery of the loan amount of Rs. 12,48,856 along with interest and Rs. 2,81,273 along with interest.
2. The plaint averments in brief are that, the defendant No. 1, through its proprietrix defendant No. 2, availed vehicle purchase loan of Rs. 15,98,000 which was 3 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 sanctioned on 27-03-2018 and emergency credit line guarantee scheme loan [ECLGS] of Rs. 2,05,600 sanctioned on 9-6-2020 and the defendants have also executed all the necessary documents in respect of availing of the said loans, but later on, the defendants have defaulted in repayment of the same, in spite of issuance of notice, which has constrained the bank to take possession of one of the hypothecated vehicles, which has been sold for Rs. 2,31,985. Even after sale of said vehicle, the defendants are due and liable to repay sum of Rs. 12,48,856 towards the vehicle loan and Rs. 2,81,273 towards the ECLGS facility loan. Hence, for recovery of the said amounts along with the respective interest and penal interest, the present suit is filed.
3. On issuance of suit summons to the defendants, the defendants have entered appearance through counsel and have filed a detailed written statement taking up the preliminary pleas that, suit is barred by limitation and also bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the competent authority under CGTMSE. On the merits of the suit, the defense taken is that the rate of interest with respect to the 4 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 loans is disputed. Secondly, it is contended that since the ECLGS loan is a totally different transaction whose valuation is less than Rs. 3 lakhs, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in so far as the said loan is concerned. It is contended that in seizing and selling one of the hypothecated vehicles, the plaintiff bank has not followed proper procedure and without getting valuation of same from qualified, certified vehicle valuer. It is contended that the loan is governed under CGTMSE scheme and therefore without impleading the authority under the said scheme, suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. With these pleadings, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this court has framed the following issues and additional issues;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff advanced loan of Rs.
15,98,000 to the defendants on 27-3- 2018 and another loan of Rs. 2,05,600 on 9-6-2020 and defendants have defaulted in repayment of the loan 5 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 and plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.
12,48,856 along with interest and
sum of Rs. 2,81,273 along with
interest towards the said loan
accounts?
(2) Whether the defendant proves
that since the loan amount in respect
of second loan is below the specified
value, this court does not have the
jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the said loan?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
(4) What order or decree?
Additional issue No. 1 framed on 26-10- 2024.
Whether suit is filed within period of limitation? 6
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 Additional issue No. 2 framed on 23-11- 2024.
Whether defendants prove that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. In the trial, the manager of plaintiff bank is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the defendants, the GPA holder of Defendants is examined as DW-1 and got marked. Ex. D-1.
6. After closure of evidence of both sides, I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records of the case.
7. My answer to the issues are as follows;
Issue No. 1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2 : In the negative.
Issue No. 3 : In the affirmative.
Additional issue No. 1 : In the affirmative. Additional issue No. 2 : In the negative. Issue No. 4 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS.7
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 Issue No. 1.
8. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the defendant No. 1, through its proprietrix defendant No. 2, availed vehicle purchase loan of Rs. 15,98,000 which was sanctioned on 27-03-2018 and emergency credit line guarantee scheme loan [ECLGS] of Rs. 2,05,600 sanctioned on 9-6-2020 and the defendants have also executed all the necessary documents in respect of availing of the said loans, but later on, the defendants have defaulted in repayment of the same, in spite of issuance of notice, which has constrained the bank to take possession of one of the hypothecated vehicles, which has been sold for Rs. 2,31,985. Even after sale of said vehicle, the defendants are due and liable to repay sum of Rs. 12,48,856 towards the vehicle loan and Rs. 2,81,273 towards the ECLGS facility loan. Hence, for recovery of the said amounts along with the respective interest and penal interest, the present suit is filed.
9. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined its manager as PW-1 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-9. Ex. P-1 is the sanction memorandum in respect of sanction of vehicle 8 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 loan of Rs. 15,98,000 on 27-03-2018. Ex. P-2 is the letter issued by defendant No. 2 declaring that she is the sole proprietrix of defendant No. 1. Ex. P-3 is the vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement in respect of the said loan dated 28-03-2018. Ex. P-4 is the sanction memorandum in respect of the emergency credit line guarantee scheme loan i.e. ECLGS loan of Rs. 2,05,600 which is dated 9-6-2020. Ex. P-5 is the credit facility agreement in respect of the said ECLGS loan. Ex. P-6 is the supplemental agreement of hypothecation, hypothecating the vehicles as security for repayment of the ECLGS loan. Ex. P-7 is the notice under SARFAESI Act for repayment of the loans and it is in pursuance of the said notice that one of the hypothecated vehicles has been seized and sold. Ex. P-8 is the non-starter report of PIM. Ex. P-9 are the two loan account statements.
10. Per contra, the defense raised by the defendants is that, the suit is barred by limitation and also bad for non- joinder of necessary party i.e. the competent authority under CGTMSE. On the merits of the suit, the defense taken is that the rate of interest with respect to the loans is disputed. Secondly, it is contended that since the ECLGS 9 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 loan is a totally different transaction whose valuation is less than Rs. 3 lakhs, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in so far as the said loan is concerned. It is contended that in seizing and selling one of the hypothecated vehicles, the plaintiff bank has not followed proper procedure and without getting valuation of same from qualified, certified vehicle valuer. It is contended that the loan is governed under CGTMSE scheme and therefore without impleading the authority under the said scheme, suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. With these pleadings, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
11. In support of their defense, the defendants have examined their GPA holder who is also the husband of defendant No. 2 as DW-1 and got marked Ex. D-1 which is the power of attorney dated 17-12-2024.
12. Having considered the rival contentions of both sides and the oral and documentary evidence on record, at the outset, one technical contention which was raised by the learned counsel for the Defendants at time of arguments has to be considered. It was argued that PW-1 is 10 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 not authorized to depose on behalf of the plaintiff since no authorization letter or board resolution issued by the board of directors of plaintiff bank has been produced authorizing PW-1 to depose in the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. Records disclose that along with the affidavit evidence an attested copy of power of attorney executed by MD & CEO of the plaintiff bank in favor of PW-1 is produced but the same is not marked since it is neither original nor certified copy nor notarized copy but it is a self- attested copy attested by PW-1 himself. Anyhow, the fact remains that, the designation of PW-1 as senior manager of plaintiff bank is undisputed. Such being the case by virtue of his very office PW-1 is authorized to represent the bank and depose on behalf of the bank. Therefore, the contention that PW-1 is not duly authorized stands rejected.
13. Turning to the merits of the case, from the respective sanction memorandums at Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4 which are duly signed by defendant No. 2 as proprietrix of defendant No. 1, it is clear that the plaintiff bank has sanctioned vehicle loan of Rs. 15,98,000 on 27-03-2018 and ECLGS loan of Rs. 2,05,600 on 9-06-2020 to the defendant No. 1 11 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 represented by its proprietrix viz. defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 as proprietrix has also executed the vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement in respect of the first loan and credit facility agreement and supplemental agreement of hypothecation at Ex. P-5 and 6 in respect of the second loan. Apart from this, the availment of the said loans is admitted by DW-1 at paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of his cross-examination. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the defendants having availed the said two loans are liable to repay the same to the plaintiff bank along with agreed rate of interest.
14. As already noted supra, the loan is availed by defendant No. 1 which is the proprietorship concern belonging to defendant No. 2 as evidenced by the sole proprietorship declaration form at Ex. P-2. The law is settled that proprietorship concern does not have a legal identity of its own and it is only a trade name under which the proprietrix carries on business as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinayak Purshottam Dube (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Jayashree Padamkar 12 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 Bhat and Ors. (01.03.2024 - SC) : Civil Appeal Nos. 7768-7769 of 2023, as follows;
In Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes, MANU/SC/7276/2007 : 2007:INSC:379 : (2007) 5 SCC 103, while distinguishing a juristic person such as a company, a partnership or an association of persons from a proprietary concern, it was observed that a person who carries on business in the name of a business concern, but he being a proprietor thereof, would be solely responsible for conduct of its affairs. A proprietary concern is not a company. Further, a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the proprietor of the business carries on the business. A suit by or against a proprietary concern is by or against the proprietor of the business. In the event of the death of the proprietor of a proprietary concern, it is the legal representatives of the proprietor who alone can sue or be sued in respect of the dealings of the proprietary business which is by representing the estate of the deceased proprietor. The real party who is being sued is the proprietor of the said business. Therefore, if a proprietor had to carry on certain obligations personally under a contract, the same cannot be fastened on his legal representatives.
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Therefore, essentially defendant No. 1 and 2 being the proprietorship concern and its proprietrix are one and the 13 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 same entity and hence they are both liable to repay the loan. Now turning to the question as to what is the balance amount due in respect of the said two loans as on the date of the filing of the suit, the same is forthcoming from the loan account statements collectively marked as Ex. P9. Page 72 to 75 is the loan account statement in respect of the vehicle loan of Rs. 15,98,000. As on 13-10-2023, which is just before filing of the suit, the balance in respect of the said loan is shown as Rs. 12,48,856, which is also the principal amount being claimed in respect of the said loan. Similarly, page 76 to 77 of Ex. P9 is the loan account statement in respect of the ECLGS facility loan, and the said loan account shows the balance amount as on 13-10-2023 as Rs. 2,81,273, which is the principal amount being claimed in respect of the said loan, in the present suit.
16. The said bank account statements are maintained by the bank in the regular course of its business and are reliable documents. The defendants have not led any evidence or raised any contention to doubt the correctness of the entries in the loan account statement, except for contending that the sale of one of the seized hypothecated 14 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 vehicles is irregular since no proper valuation report was taken. However, perusal of the loan account statement in respect of the first loan discloses that there is an entry at the bottom of page 74 dated 27-07-2022 giving credit for Rs. 2,31,985 towards valuation sale. Therefore, it is clear that the sale of one of the hypothecated vehicles is duly credited into the loan account. The contention that the said sale was improper is a contention that ought to have been taken by initiating appropriate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, since the said sale is made pursuant to notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and therefore the said contention cannot be raised in the present suit, which is a loan recovery suit filed by the bank. For all these reasons, the loan account statements maintained by the bank in the regular course of its business are reliable documents, and therefore, on the basis of the same, I hold that the plaintiff has proved that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 12,48,856 in respect of the first loan and Rs. 2,81,273 in respect of the second loan.
17. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, as already noted supra, in the written statement the rate of interest is 15 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 specifically disputed. However, the respective rates of interest are forthcoming from the loan account statements themselves. In the loan account statement in respect of the first loan at page 72, the interest rate is stated as 13.40%, and in respect of the second loan, the interest rate is stated as 9.25% at page 76. Further, in the sanction memorandum of the two loans, it is specifically stated that, in case of default, the bank will impose 2% penal interest.
18. However, insofar as the first loan is concerned, the Learned counsel for plaintiff himself has put a suggestion to DW1 that rate of interest is 12.40% per annum (para 1 of cross examination of DW1). No doubt, the said suggestion is denied. However, by putting the said suggestion, the plaintiff bank cannot claim a higher rate of interest than 12.40% p.a. in respect of the first loan. Therefore, in respect of the first loan, the plaintiff bank can only claim interest at 12.40% per annum rather than 13.40% p.a. as stated in loan account statement.
19. Apart from this, the plaintiff is claiming compound interest. However, in my view, it is only simple interest that can be awarded by the court. Further, in my view, this is 16 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 not a fit case to award penal interest at 2% per annum, since the bank has already seized one of the hypothecated vehicles and sold the same for recovery of the loan under SARFAESI Act. Therefore, I hold that in respect of the first loan, the plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 12,48,856 along with simple interest at the rate of 12.40% per annum from date of suit till date of realization.
20. Similarly, in respect of the second loan, on the basis of the loan account statement, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2,81,273 along with interest at 9.25% per annum from date of suit till date of realization. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2:-
21. The defendants contend that since the amount due in respect of the second loan is below the specified value of Rs. 3 lakhs, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit insofar as the second loan is concerned. This contention has to be stated only to be rejected because under Order 2, Rule 3 CPC, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant and where causes of action are so united, the pecuniary 17 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 jurisdiction of the court shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters as on the date of institution of the suit. Therefore, in the case on hand, the plaintiff having two causes of action for recovery of the two loans against the same defendant is entitled to unite the two causes of action into the same suit. And once the two causes of action are united, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the aggregate value of the two causes of action has to be considered. If so considered, the aggregate value of the amount claimed in respect of the two loans exceeds the specified value of Rs. 3 lakhs and therefore, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Accordingly, the contention of the defendant in this regard fails and I answer issue No. 2 in the negative.
Additional issue No. 1:-
22. This issue is regarding limitation. The contention of the defendant is that the loans have not been renewed every three years and therefore, suit is barred by limitation. Insofar as the first loan is concerned, it was sanctioned on 27.03.2018 as per the sanction memorandum at Ex. P1. If the loan account statement is looked into, which is at Ex. 18
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 P9, it is seen that on 12.01.2021, there is a credit entry into the said loan account at page 74 of Ex. P9 of Rs. 20,000. In this regard, D.W.1 in his cross-examination at paragraph 2 says that, he agrees that as per the bank account statement at Ex. P9, on 12.01.2021, Rs. 20,000 is credited into loan account and said amount has come from Karnataka Bank, and he also admits that the bank account of Karnataka Bank from which the amount is transferred is that of the defendants. Therefore, it is clear that in respect of the first loan which was availed on 27.03.2018, within three years from the date of sanction of the loan, that is on 12.01.2021, there is a part payment towards the said loan account by the defendants which extends the period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, a fresh period of limitation has to be computed from 12.01.2021 and counted from the said date, suit is filed within three years on 25.10.2023 and therefore, suit is within the period of limitation in respect of the first loan.
23. Insofar as the second loan is concerned, there is no difficulty because the second loan is availed only on 9.06.2020 as per Ex. P4. Due to COVID-19 lockdown, the 19 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 Hon'ble Apex Court has directed in the orders dated 10-01- 2022 in RE- Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo-Motu WP [C]. No. 3 of 2020, that period from 15-03- 2020 till 28-02-2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation. Since the second loan is availed during the COVID-19 lockdown period on 9/6/2020, the limitation in respect of the second loan will begin to run only on 1/3/2022 as per the above ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court. Counted from 1/3/2022, suit is filed within 3 years on 25/10/2023 and therefore, suit is within the period of limitation even in respect of the second loan. Accordingly I answer additional issue No. 1 in the affirmative.
Additional issue No. 2:-
24. This issue is framed in view of the contention raised by the Defendants that, the loans are covered by CGTMSE scheme and therefore, the authority under the CGTMSE ought to be impleaded and in the absence of impleading the said authority or central government, suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. In this regard, the learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in WP 32288/2017 20 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 dated 19-01-2018 in the case of Sai Sree Ganesh Industries v. UOI. In the said ruling, the Honorable High Court has elaborately referred to the CGTMSE scheme and observed that under Clause 10 (iii) of the scheme, the CGTMSE is required to pay 75% of the guaranteed amount on preferring of eligible claim by the bank within the time frame and is required to pay the balance 25% of the guaranteed amount on conclusion of recovery proceedings or if the decree gets time-barred. Then the Hon'ble High Court has referred to the frequently asked questions in respect of the said scheme and referred to Question No. 11, which states that the CGTMSE does not take over the responsibility to recover the loan and the lender bank continues to remain responsible to take all efforts for recovery of the loan. Ultimately, the Honorable High Court has disposed of the writ petition by holding as follows:
"The writ petition is accordingly disposed off directing the Syndicate Bank to immediately inform the CGTMSE of the factum of the petitioner firm's loan accounts having become NPAs in terms of 21 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 the CGTMSE scheme and thereafter abide by the procedure prescribed under the said scheme for realizing its dues in relation thereto. It is made clear that the petitioner firm's understanding that it need not pay 75% of the guaranteed amount in default which would be released by CGTMSE under the first installment is incorrect, being contrary to the import and intendment of the scheme. The Syndicate Bank would necessarily have to endeavor to recover the entire outstanding dues from the petitioner firm so as to make good the amounts released by CGTMSE and it is only if the recovery proceedings fall short that CGTMSE would have to release the second installment of 25% of the guaranteed 22 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 amount. The Syndicate Bank shall take steps accordingly."
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. Therefore, from the above law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, it becomes crystal clear that merely because the loan is covered under the CGTMSE scheme does not mean that the borrower is not liable to pay the loan or that the CGTMSE authority takes over the responsibility for recovery of the loan. Irrespective of the loan being guaranteed under the CGTMSE scheme, it is the duty of the bank to take all necessary steps for recovery of the loan. Since the loan is not taken over by the CGTMSE authority, there is no question of impleading the said authority in the suit, since it is neither a proper nor necessary party. It is for the bank to take all steps for recovery of the loan and only if all steps fail, the CGTMSE authority will release the remaining 25% of the guaranteed amount. In case any amount is recovered from the borrower, the bank is duty-bound to transfer the same to 23 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 the CGTMSE authority. Therefore, the contention that CGTMSE authority has to be impleaded in the suit is unacceptable and accordingly I answer Additional Issue No. 2 in the negative.
26. Before parting, reference may be made to the citations relied upon by learned counsel for the defendants. Reliance is placed upon the following rulings by learned counsel for the defendants along with memo dated 16-04- 2025:
Ajab Enterprises vs. Jayant Vegoiles and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1991 Bombay 35;
J.C. Budhraja vs. Chairman Orissa
Mining Corporation Ltd., (2008) 2
SCC 444;
Udit Narain Singh vs. Additional
Member Board of Revenue, Bihar,
AIR 1963 SC 786.
27. The first two rulings are in respect of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. These rulings are inapplicable because I 24 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 have already held that the limitation is extended not under Section 18 on the basis of an acknowledgment of debt but under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, since part payment towards the loan and interest is made on 12-01-2021, which is admitted by DW-1. The third ruling is relied upon for an observation made at paragraph 14 that the request for impleadment having been made belatedly cannot be accepted. This ruling is also inapplicable because I have already held while answering Additional Issue No. 2 that the authority under the CGTMSE scheme is neither a proper nor necessary party and therefore the question of seeking its impleadment does not arise.
Issue No. 3:-
28. I answer this issue by holding that, the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as stated above, while answering issue No. 1.
Issue No. 4:-
29. Having answered the remaining issues as above, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER The suit is partly decreed, with cost.25
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the following sums;
i. Rs. 12,48,856/= along with
interest at 12.40% per annum
from date of suit till date of
realization.
ii. Rs. 2,81,273/= along with
interest at 9.25% per annum
from date of suit till date of
realization,
from the Defendant No. 1 and 2, who
are essentially one and the same entity being proprietorship concern and its proprietrix.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
Office to issue soft copy of this
judgment to both sides, by email, if
furnished.
[Dictated using MacWhisper Pro 10.8.1, transcript revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of April, 2025] 26 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 SUDINDRA Digitally signed by SUDINDRA NATH S NATH S Date: 2025.05.03 15:16:26 +0530 (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
PW1 : Sri. Sandeep K.
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
Defendant/s:
DW1 : Sri Srinivas Reddy
3. List of documents marked on behalf of
Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Sanction letter dated.27.03.2023
Ex.P2 : Sole proprietorship declaration form
Ex.P3 : Hypothecation agreement along with 3 B extracts
Ex.P4 : Sanction letter dated.09.06.2020
Ex.P5 : Credit facility agreement
Ex.P6 : Supplemental agreement of hypothecation
Ex.P7 : Office copy of notice dated.31.05.2021 along
with RPAD receipts
Ex.P8 : Non starter report of PIM
Ex.P9 : Loan account statements (2 numbers) along
with certificate under BBEA
4. List of documents marked on behalf of
Defendant/s:
Ex.D1 Power of attorney
27
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.1204-2023_Judgment.doc KABC170025272023 (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ACC & SJ, (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU