Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Limited vs . Satpal Singh on 2 February, 2010
SUIT No. 289/09 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SATPAL SINGH IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.C. MALIK: ADJ-05 (CENTRAL) : DELHI (UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908) SUIT NO:289/09 IN THE MATTER OF M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT :
LANDMARK, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA-390007.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT :
PLOT No. 7, S.D. TOWER, , SECTOR-8, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085. ... PLAINTIFF VERSUS SATPAL SINGH BORROWER S/O SH. AJMER SINGH HOUSE NO.3/242, SUBHASH NAGAR DELHI-110027 ... DEFENDANT SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF 4,89,178.75 (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy Eight and Paisa Seventy Five Only) Plaint Presented On 19-11-2009 Arguments Heard On 02-02-2010 Suit Decreed On 02-02-2010 ORDER-SHEET Page 1 of 4 S.C. Malik,ADJ-05 (Central), Delhi 02-02-2010 SUIT No. 289/09 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SATPAL SINGH Present: Sh. Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate for the plaintiff bank Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank have been heard. The record of this case has also been perused.
2. This suit had been instituted by the plaintiff bank under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as CPC on account of the same being for recovery of a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant with interest thereon arising on a written contract. The defendant had been issued summons of this suit under the provisions of Order 37 of CPC which were ultimately served on the defendant through registered A.D. post & process server at the address of the defendant as per the A.D. card placed on record but despite service the defendant did not enter an appearance either in person or by a pleader either within the statutory period of 10 days as required by the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 of CPC or even thereafter.
3. The suit is for recovery of a sum of 4,89,178.75 (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy Eight and Paisa Page 2 of 4 S.C. Malik,ADJ-05 (Central), Delhi 02-02-2010 SUIT No. 289/09 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SATPAL SINGH Seventy Five Only). As per averments made in the plaint, the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of a loan of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) for purchase of commercial vehicle i.e. one 'TATA WINGER', entered into a Loan Agreement, executed Credit Facility Application Form along with terms and conditions for the said facility, Deed of Hypothecation and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney etc. in favour of the plaintiff bank on 15-05-2008 and agreed to repay the same in 35 equated monthly installments of Rs. 20,470/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Only) each and accordingly the aforesaid loan amount of Rs. Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) was disbursed to the defendant. As per record maintained by the plaintiff bank the defendant's Loan Agreement No. is LVDEL00013590149. On grant of loan as aforesaid the defendant purchased the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. DL1VA6603 and hypothecated the same with the plaintiff bank in terms of loan documents executed between the parties.
4. Precisely the defendant executed the following documents :-
a) Credit Facility Application Form as mentioned in Para No. 9 (a) of the plaint, Page 3 of 4 S.C. Malik,ADJ-05 (Central), Delhi 02-02-2010 SUIT No. 289/09 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SATPAL SINGH
b) Deed of Hypothecation and as mentioned in Para No. 9 (a) of the plaint and
c) Irrevocable Power of Attorney as mentioned in Para No. 9 (a) of the plaint.
5. After taking the aforesaid loan, purchase of vehicle in question by executing above mentioned documents etc., the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline and went in committing a breach of the Contract of Loan and as a result thereof the plaintiff through their counsel issued a notice of demand dated 22-10-2009 calling upon him to make the payment of the entire outstanding amount along-with interest thereon amounting to a sum of 4,89,178.75 (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy Eight and Paisa Seventy Five Only) in accordance with the terms of the Contract of Loan.
6. Despite having received the aforesaid notice of demand also the defendant failed to make any payment in this respect. The foreclosure amount as per the plaintiff bank as on 08-10-2009 showed an outstanding balance as claimed in the plaint.
7. In support of the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff has placed on record copies of the above mentioned documents along with Page 4 of 4 S.C. Malik,ADJ-05 (Central), Delhi 02-02-2010 SUIT No. 289/09 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SATPAL SINGH foreclosure letter and statement of accounts etc. These documents placed on record prima-facie support the claim of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint.
8. Since the defendant has failed to enter an appearance, the averments made in the plaint, duly supported by various documents placed on record in support of the plaint are deemed to be correct and admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for.
9. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of 4,89,178.75 (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy Eight and Paisa Seventy Five Only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till the date of passing of this decree only alongwith costs in view of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 Sub-Rule 3 of CPC.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Dictated and Announced in ( S.C. MALIK ) the open Court on 02-02-2010. ADJ-05 (Central) Page 5 of 4 S.C. Malik,ADJ-05 (Central), Delhi 02-02-2010 SUIT No. 289/09 ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. SATPAL SINGH Delhi.
Page 6 of 4 S.C. Malik,ADJ-05 (Central), Delhi
02-02-2010