Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

M/S True Link Finance Ltd vs ) Mr. Mohd. Ali on 25 May, 2022

                          IN THE COURT OF SWATI GUPTA,
                 ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ARC­CUM­CCJ,
              NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

                                                                      CS SCJ No. 268/2018
                                                                      CNR No.DLND03­001913­2018
       M/s True Link Finance Ltd,
       Reg. Office: D­44, Mohan Singh Market,
       Sector­6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi­110022                                    ... Plaintiff

              VERSUS

1)     Mr. Mohd. Ali
       S/o Sh. Mohd. Kayum
       H. No.9 (3rd Floor)
       Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh
       New Delhi­110021.

2)     Mr. Sumit Kumar
       S/o Sh. Raju Kumar
       H.No.A­610,Kusumpur Pahari
       Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­110057.                                           ... Defendants




                        CIVIL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.12,757/­


       Date of institution                          :       23.02.2018
       Date for reserving for judgment              :       Not reserved
       Date of judgment                             :       25.05.2022
       Final judgment                               :       Suit Decreed.


                                     EX­PARTE JUDGMENT

1.

The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff company being legal entity filed the present suit through its Director Sh. Shashi Bhagria against the defendants. It CS SCJ No. 268/2018 M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Mr. Mohd. Ali & Anr. Page 1 of 4 is noted that Sh. R. P. Mishra and Sh. Dinesh Kumar are also the authorized representatives of the plaintiff company. It is stated by the plaintiff company that the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff company on 15.07.2016 for grant of Hire Purchase Finance/loan for purchasing one Micromax Mobile phone from shop chosen by the defendant no.1 i.e. Raj Electronics, Shop No. 9, Mohan Singh Market, Sector­6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi­110022, on the guarantee of Mr.Sumit Kumar (defendant no.2 in the present case). It is further alleged that the said loan was repayable by the defendant no.1 in 6 monthly hire installments (EMIs) of Rs.2183/­ (each), the first installment was payable on 15.08.2016 and thereafter, the remaining each payable on 15 th of each following consecutive English calendar months and last installment was payable on 15.01.2018. It is further stated that in case of any delayed payment, overdue interest @ 2.5% per month was agreed to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff company. It is further the case of the plaintiff company that the defendants executed various documents like Hire Purchase Agreement, Promissory note etc. It is stated by the plaintiff company that defendant no.1 Mr. Mohd. Ali made payment of Rs.4,000/­ only and failed to adhere to financial discipline and defaulted in making the payment of EMIs as per schedule. Accordingly, outstanding EMIs payable by the defendant no.1 is Rs.9098/­.It is further stated that the defendants failed to clear the liability despite issuance of demand notice dated 08.07.2017. With these facts, the plaintiff company has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,757/­ alongwith interest thereon @ 2.5% per month.

2. It is noted that initially the present suit was filed under Order XXXVII of CPC, however, at the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff company, the suit was converted into an ordinary civil suit vide order dated 23.02.2018.

3. Despite service by way of publication on 14.10.2020, defendants neither turned up in the Court in person nor filed any written statement and accordingly, the defence of the defendants was struck off and both the defendants were proceeded ex­parte vide order CS SCJ No. 268/2018 M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Mr. Mohd. Ali & Anr. Page 2 of 4 dated 01.09.2021.

4. In ex­parte evidence, the plaintiff company examined Sh. R.P.Mishra, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company as PW­1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW­1/1 and relied upon the following documents:­ i. Copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors dt. 20.12.2017 as Ex.PW1/1A (OSR);

ii.     Copy of Incorporation Certificate as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR);
iii.    Copy of RBI Certificate as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
iv.     Copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors dt. 24.12.2015 as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR);
v.      Original Introductory Loan cum Hypothecation Proposal Form dated 15.07.2016 as
        Ex.PW1/5;
vi.     Original Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 15.07.2016 as Ex­PW1/6;
vii.    Original promissory note dated 15.07.2016 as Ex­PW1/7;
viii.   Copy of Legal Notice dated 08.07.2017 as Ex­PW1/8;
ix.     Computer generated statement of account as Ex­PW1/9;
x.      Copy of Form No. 32 as Mark A;
xi.     Copy of aadhar card and office ID card of the defendant no.1 as Mark B & C
        respectively; &
xii.    Copy of aadhar card of defendant no.2 as Mark D.
5.             Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 16.12.2021.

6. I have heard the ex­parte final arguments advanced by Ld. Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff company and carefully perused the record.

7. In the present case, as noted above, vide order dated 01.09.2021, the defendants no.1 Mr. Mohd. Ali and defendant no.2 Mr. Sumit Kumar were proceeded ex­ parte and their defence was struck off for not filing the written statement. The evidence of PW1 stands unrebutted / unchallenged, as PW1 was not cross­examined by the said CS SCJ No. 268/2018 M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Mr. Mohd. Ali & Anr. Page 3 of 4 defendants. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of AR of the plaintiff company / PW­1 recorded on oath in Court. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, documents exhibited/tendered in evidence by PW1 and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff company has been able to prove its case against defendants.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff company and against defendant no.1 Mr. Mohd. Ali and defendant no.2 Mr. Sumit Kumar. The plaintiff company is held entitled for the decreetal amount of Rs.12,757/­.The plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 2.5% pm. However, it is settled law that pendentelite and future interest are matters of discretion and considering that the interest at the rate of 2.5% pm is onerous and penal in nature, it is not considered equitable to grant such high rate of interest. Accordingly, simple interest at the rate of 9 % per annum is considered just and equitable in the present case. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed against the defendants. Defendants are liable to pay the sum of Rs.12,757/­ to the plaintiff alongwith simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.

9. Deficient court­fees, if any, be filed within 10 days from today and decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order as to cost.

10. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Court                                            (SWATI GUPTA)
today i.e. on 25.05.2022.                                          ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC
                                                                   NEW DELHI : 25.05.2022




CS SCJ No. 268/2018            M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Mr. Mohd. Ali & Anr.           Page 4 of 4