Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Narender Kumar on 24 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-005604-2021
CS (Comm) 291/2021
State Bank of India
Through Manager (SARC)
Retail Assets Central
Processing Centre (RACPC),
South Extn Part-I,
F-40, 2nd & 3rd Floor,
Ring Road,
New Delhi-110049.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Narendra Kumar
S/o Sh. Jai Singh
House No. Janta Flat B-4/13D,
Keshav Puram,
New Delhi-110035.
Also at:
D - 118A, Tripathi Enclave,
Prem Nagar 2,
Kiradi Suleman Nagar,
C Block, Sultanpuri,
New Delhi-110086.
Also at:
Flat No. 28, Second Floor,
Block F-6, Sector G-8,
Narela,
New Delhi-110040.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE E-mail: n/a.
Mobile No.: +91-9910878244. ....Defendant
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.01.24
16:10:20 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 1 of 17
Date of institution of the suit : 23.08.2021
Date on which judgment was reserved : 14.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 24.01.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.14,80,302/- alongwith interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that :-
i. Plaintiff i.e. State Bank of India is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, having one of its Local Head Office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi and a Branch Office at Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC) at F-40, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Ring Road, South Ext. Part-I, New Delhi-110049. The present suit has been filed through its Manager (SARC) Shri Chatinder Kumar who is duly authorized by the Gazette Notification to sign, file, institute and depose the present suit.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA ii. The Defendant is an individual-cum-borrower of credit facilities BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:10:25 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 2 of 17 availed from the Plaintiff and therefore, liable for the loan facility availed by him from the Plaintiff Bank.
iii. The Defendant had approached the Plaintiff Bank in order to secure a loan facility for enabling the Defendant to purchase a House under SBI Home Loan Scheme.
iv. The Defendant filed an application for a Home Loan with the Plaintiff Bank to initiate the process for grant of loan amount and the Plaintiff Bank, acting upon the representations and assurances made by the Defendant, sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.13,33,000/- vide sanction letter dated 15.05.2018.
v. In pursuance to the aforesaid sanction, various documents such as Arrangement Letter dated 15.05.2018, Term Loan agreement dated 15.05.2018 were entered into between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. The loan agreements were duly filled in, read over and explained to the Defendant who signed the same.
vi. In pursuance thereof, the loan was payable in 240 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.11,569/-, the schedule of repayment and interest may vary from time to time as per the change of rate of interest stipulated by the Plaintiff Bank. The Plaintiff disbursed the entire loan amount by opening a Loan Account no. 37702722798.
NEERA BHARIHOKE vii. The Defendant initially honoured the commitments of paying the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 3 of 17 16:10:29 +0530 EMI's but thereafter repayment became irregular. Thus, the Defendant was neglected in making timely repayment of the loan amount availed thereunder.
viii. Repeated requests, reminders and notices sent by and on behalf of the Plaintiff requesting and advising the Defendant to clear outstanding amounts due under the loan agreement. The Plaintiff had also issued a demand letters to the Defendant whereby he was informed about the total outstanding amount but to no avail as the same did not evoke any compliance. The loan account having not been regularized by the Defendant thus was categorized as an NPA w.e.f. 05.12.2019.
ix. The Plaintiff issued legal demand notice dated 02.09.2020 to the Defendant calling upon him to pay the then outstanding amount plus accrued interest in terms of the loan agreement but, no steps had been taken by the Defendant to regularize the loan account.
x. The Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 12.10.2020, however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 27.02.2021.
NEERA BHARIHOKE 3. Hence the present suit has been filed.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:10:34 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 4 of 17CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. The case as stated by the Defendant in the Written Statement are that :-
i. The suit of the Plaintiff under reply is liable to be dismissed being false and frivolous.
ii. That the suit of the Plaintiff under reply is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has arisen in favour of Plaintiff bank and against the Defendant. The Defendant had been paying regular EMIS against the loan granted by the Plaintiff bank. The Defendant had been granted subsidy under PMAY which had not been credited to the Defendant's Loan Account, besides the Plaintiff had not followed the Government as well as RBI guidelines during the period of Covid-19 and no benefits as announced by the Government was given to the Defendant.
iii. The suit of the Plaintiff under reply is liable to be dismissed as has not been signed, verified instituted and filed by a duly authorized person on behalf of Plaintiff bank. Shri Chantinder Kumar, Manager was not competent to sign, verify, file the present plaint on behalf of the bank nor had been authorized by the Plaintiff bank to do so.
NEERA BHARIHOKE iv. The suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff bank Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:10:38 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 5 of 17 is guilty of suppressing, misrepresenting the facts before this Court. The Plaintiff bank had not disclosed as to the manner put the loan account under the category of NPA. The Plaintiff Bank had shown the loan account as NPA on 05.12.2019, whereas total EMIs starting from 15.05.2018 to 14.12.2019 come to 19 EMI's and 19th EMI was due on 14.12.2019 against which total amount as per calculation comes Rs.11,569/- X 19 = Rs.2,19,811/- till then the Defendant had deposited the installment amount till 14.12.2019 according to the Statement a sum of Rs.2,23,777/-. Before 31.12.2019, Defendant's subsidy amount of Rs.2,62,000/- had also been disbursed in Defendant's loan account but Plaintiff did not adjust the full subsidy amount in Defendant's Loan Account, therefore had been no reason for declaring NPA.
v. The Plaintiff according to the Bank Statement w.e.f. 15.05.2018 to 18.10.2021 deducted the amount of Rs.650/- towards legal demand notice dated 13.07.2021 and legal fee recovered on 26.07.2021 amounting to Rs.450/- as the alleged legal notice was never been served upon to Defendant & according to the Bank Statement, Plaintiff adjusted Rs.1,97,072.71 Paise subsidy amount debit wrongly.
vi. It was denied that the Defendant initially honored the commitments NEERA of paying the EMIs but thereafter repayment became regular. It was BHARIHOKE denied that the Defendant is reprehensible of committing material Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE breaches of the terms of the loan agreement in as much as he Date: 2025.01.24 16:10:48 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 6 of 17 repeated neglected in making timely repayment of the loan amount a availed thereunder. Defendant w.e.f. 15.05.2018 to 14.10.2021 towards 42 EMIs with interest had come to Rs.11,569/- X 42 = Rs.4,85,898/- and against the said EMI's even according to Bank Statement, the Defendant deposited a sum of Rs.4,85,926.41 Paise till 14.10.2021, therefore, there had been no default on the part of the Defendant in making against EMI's.
vii. It was denied that the repeated request, reminder and notices sent by and only behalf of the Plaintiff from time to time, requesting and advising the Defendant to clear outstanding amount due under the loan agreement.
viii. It was denied that the Plaintiff had also issued a demand letter to the Defendant whereby he was informed about the total outstanding amount but to no avail as the same did not evoke any compliance. It was denied that loan account having not been regularized by the Defendant thus was categorized as an NPA w.e.f. 05.12.2019. Defendant had only received a notice dated 02.09.2020 and the said notice duly replied by the Defendant vide reply dated 10.09.2020. In his reply, the Defendant sent to Plaintiff bank and a copy of the same to Manager, SBI, RACPC, New Delhi and has informed the Plaintiff that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- in the NEERA BHARIHOKE Loan Account and it was further informed that PMAY subsidy Digitally signed amount was also to be credited to the loan account of the Defendant. by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:10:52 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 7 of 17 ix. PMAY subsidy was already was disbursed to the account of Defendant before 31.12.2019 but the Plaintiff bank did not credit the said PMAY subsidy amounting to Rs.2,62,000/- to the loan account of the Defendant but the Plaintiff only credited only a sum of Rs.42,422/- only as against the aforesaid PMAY subsidy of Rs.2,62,000/- and Plaintiff had concealed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- of PMAY subsidy.
x. Defendant made repeated enquiries for the said subsidy amount from the Branch Manager but the Plaintiff bank had denied of receiving aforesaid subsidy amount. The Plaintiff bank had wrongly declared the loan of the Defendant as NPA w.e.f. 05.12.2019 and by this act of the Plaintiff bank, the Defendant had suffered immense loss of financial status and badly affected cibil score and further caused severe physical and mental harassment to the Defendant.
xi. Defendant had informed the Plaintiff that he had already deposited a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- in the Loan Account and it was further informed that PMAY subsidy amount was also to be credited to the Loan Account of the Defendant and PMAY subsidy was already was disbursed to the account of Defendant before 31.12.2019 but the Plaintiff Bank did not credit the said PMAY subsidy amounting to Rs.2,62,000/- to the Loan Account of the Defendant and the NEERA Plaintiff only credited only a sum of Rs.42,422/- only as against the BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by aforesaid PMAY subsidy of Rs.2,62,000/- and the Plaintiff had NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:10:56 +0530 concealed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- of PMAY subsidy.
CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 8 of 17xii. During the period of Covid-19 and National Lockdown, the Government had announced various RBI guidelines and relaxation to the borrowers but the Plaintiff had neither given any of the benefit to the Defendant nor intimation in this regard was given to the Defendant. Defendant got infected to the corona virus and medical report dated 25.04.2021 was being annexed.
xiii. During the Covid-19 outbreak, the Government had issued direction to the financial institutions to not to pressurize any persons therefore, the Plaintiff bank was not required to issue any such demand notice by any mode. The Defendant had received only one notice dated 02.09.2020 which was duly reply by the Defendant as stated the foregoing paragraph.
xiv. The suit of the Plaintiff is false and frivolous. The Defendant w.e.f.
15.5.2018 to 14.10.2021 towards 42 EMIs come to Rs.11,569/- X 42 = Rs.4,85,898/- and against the said EMI's even according to Bank Statement, the Defendant deposited a sum of Rs.4,85,926.41 Paise till 14.10.2021, therefore, there had been no default on the part of the Defendant in making against EMIs even otherwise the Plaintiff put the Loan Account of the Defendant in the category of NPA, therefore, without committing any default, the Defendant was NEERA BHARIHOKE not liable to pay the entire amount but was only liable to pay 42 Digitally signed by EMIs with interest not for 20 years EMIs without any default on the NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:01 +0530 part of the Defendant. Plaintiff had not adjusted the subsidy amount CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 9 of 17 in the total amount. The Plaintiff did not deduct the subsidy amount in the accrued interest.
xv. It was denied that the Plaintiff was seeking interest in relation to a commercial transition within the meaning of provisio to section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure in consistent with the term of loan agreement. It is denied that the Statement of Account reflected the interest charged upon original advanced as application until date of NPA. Plaintiff had put the account in the category of NPA by not adjusting PMAY subsidy. The suit of the Plaintiff was based on the calculation until 23.06.2021 while the Defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.11,800/- in August, 2021 and a sum of Rs.9,500/- in October, 2021, beside this, a subsidy of Rs.1,97,072/- was disbursed under PMAY Scheme and a sum of Rs.4,127/- was also credited as Sweep amount according to the Statement of Account. A sum of Rs.23000/- of subsidy was also pending in the Loan Account.
5. It was prayed by the Defendant that the suit of the Plaintiff Bank be dismissed with costs.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
6. The Plaintiff has filed the Replication, wherein the Plaintiff has reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the averments made by the NEERA Defendant in his Written Statement. The Plaintiff also stated that on BHARIHOKE 21.01.2019, application for PMAY subsidy was submitted by Defendant Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:07 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 10 of 17 which was approved on CNA portal on 17.02.2020 and on 21.03.2020, PMAY subsidy was released by GOI to Nodal Bank. However, since account of Defendant was NPA by that time, the said subsidy was not credited in the Loan Account of the Defendant. PMAY subsidy would have been availed by the Defendant. However, the same was payable only in case loan is repaid regularly and not categorized as an NPA. Similarly submission has been made in regard to relaxations accorded by RBI with the advent of Covid-19 i.e. to borrowers whose loan account was regular as on 01.03.2020.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
7. Affidavit of admission/denial of documents was not filed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff had filed affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendant and had admitted one document i.e. Statement of Account as on 18.10.2021 as Ex. D-1.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 08.10.2024, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount?
OPP.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
NEERA BHARIHOKE 3. Cost.
Digitally signed byNEERA 4. Relief.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:11 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 11 of 17PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. Plaintiff examined one witness i.e. PW-1 Mr. Sharvan Kumar. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
(a) Gazette Notification dated 02.05.1987 is Ex. PW-1/1.
(b) Original Loan Application Form is Ex. PW-1/2.
(c) Original Loan Agreement dated 15.05.2018 is Ex. PW-1/4.
(d) Copy of legal notice dated 02.09.2020 alongwith postal receipts and returned envelope are Ex. PW-1/5 (Collectively.)
(e) Copy of RTI reply and replies by the Plaintiff to Banking Ombudsman (Nodal Officer), SBI is Ex. PW-1/6.
(f) Statement of Account of the Defendant is Ex. PW-1/7.
(g) Discharge Quote dated 23.06.2021 is Ex. PW-1/8.
(h) Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Ex. PW-1/9.
10. Since Ex. PW-1/3 was neither on record nor was available with the witness, the same was not allowed to be tendered and further examination in chief was deferred as PW-1 had not brought original of one document. On next date of hearing i.e. 27.11.2024, learned Counsel for Plaintiff NEERA BHARIHOKE submitted that there were some errors in affidavit of evidence on the basis of which PW-1 was examined in part on 12.11.2024 and prayed for Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:15 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 12 of 17 allowing to file fresh affidavit of evidence. However, since the witness PW-1 was present, he was allowed to depose in regard to the errors in the affidavit of evidence in presence of learned Proxy Counsel for Defendant. He deposed that letter of arrangement mentioned as Ex. PW-1/3 in his affidavit of evidence is not in court record nor in bank record and therefore, the reference to that exhibit be deleted and number of EMIs is wrongly mentioned as 84 EMIs in para 8 of his affidavit of evidence, whereas the correct number of EMIs were 240. By court observations, it was observed that document referred as Ex. PW-1/3 in the affidavit of evidence of PW-1 shall not be considered for evidence and in para 8 of affidavit of evidence of PW-1, 84 EMIs shall be treated as 240 EMIs. The correction to that effect was made in the affidavit of evidence of PW-1 under his signatures. Cross examination of PW-1 was deferred at request of proxy Counsel for Defendant and the matter was adjourned to 10.12.2024.
11. PW-1 was discharged on 10.12.2024 as none appeared for Defendant on 10.12.2024 and right of the Defendant to cross examine PW-1 was closed. Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on statement of Mr. Sharvan Kumar, Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff on the same date.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
12. Initially, the right of the Defendant to cross examine was closed on 10.12.2024 and the matter was listed for Defendant's Evidence. NEERA BHARIHOKE Subsequently, the right of the Defendant to lead his evidence was closed Digitally signed on 17.01.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:20 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 13 of 17FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. On 14.01.2025, the submissions of learned Counsel for Plaintiff were heard and none appeared for Defendant. Defendant appeared at 12:30 PM and was directed to contact opposite counsel so that submissions of Defendant can be heard in presence of opposite counsel. Matter was taken up at 2 PM when Defendant appeared in person, while learned Counsel for Plaintiff joined through VC. The Defendant was apprised about the proceedings which took place in pre-lunch session and was directed to make submissions in regard to final arguments since he himself is a lawyer. He requested time of one week to file written submissions. His request was allowed. He filed the written submissions today and relied on the same as his arguments.
14. I have carefully gone through the record as well as written submissions.
FINDINGS
15. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. NEERA 16. The term loan facility of Rs.13,33,000/- was granted to the BHARIHOKE Defendant but the Defendant did not make the payment. The last payment Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:25 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 14 of 17 of Rs.7,790/- was made by the Defendant on May, 2020. The suit has been filed in August, 2021. Therefore, the suit is filed within limitation.
17. The suit of the Plaintiff is based upon the documents placed on record as Ex. PW-1/1, Ex. PW-1/2 & Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/9. The testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated by the other documents placed on record. There is no occasion to doubt the veracity of the said witness and for that matter, the authenticity of testimony led by him. The written submissions filed by Defendant are repetition of submissions made in his Written Statement. The Defendant has not led any evidence in support of his submissions despite being given opportunity. His submissions are bare submissions without there being any evidence to support the same. Even the documents filed by the Defendant alongwith his Written Statement do not contain any receipt of depositing of any amount by the Defendant in his bank account. Further, learned Counsel for Plaintiff has stated that whatever amounts were paid by the Defendant are duly reflected in his Statement of Account, Ex. PW-1/7 and PW-1 has not been cross examined in regard to any of the exhibits tendered by PW-1 in his cross examination.
18. Since PW-1 was not cross examined despite being given repeated opportunity to the Defendant. The testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Further, Defendant did not lead evidence despite being NEERA BHARIHOKE granted opportunity. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the on-oath Digitally signed testimony of the Plaintiff coupled with the relevant documents. Hence, by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:29 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 15 of 17 the Plaintiff has successfully proved its case by preponderance of probability.
19. Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.14,80,302/- .
Issue No.2 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
20. The rate of interest has been specifically provided in the loan documents executed by Defendant and tendered by PW-1 in his examination in chief and Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 8% per annum which is less than the rate of interest mentioned in the loan documents.
21. Therefore, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum on the suit amount of Rs.14,80,302/- till realization.
Issue No.3 : Cost.
22. Defendant is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided NEERA under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by BHARIHOKE Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, Digitally signed by NEERA the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.01.24 16:11:33 +0530 CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 16 of 17RELIEF
23. The suit is therefore decreed and the Defendant is directed to pay to Plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,80,302/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum on the suit amount of Rs.14,80,302/- till realization. Defendant is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Announced in the open Court on 24.01.2025 Digitally signed (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) NEERA by NEERA BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.01.24 16:11:38 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.01.2025 +0530 Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
NEERA
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.01.24
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
16:11:42 +0530
24.01.2025
CS (Comm) 291/21 State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Page 17 of 17