Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs M/S R R Garment on 17 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
.
Suit No. : 762/09.
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
S.D. Tower, Plot No. 7
Community Centre, Sector8, Rohini,
New Delhi.
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Sidharth Sharma ...Plaintiff.
Versus
M/s R R Garment
11/22, Shop No. 20
Tilak Nagar, Near Arya Samaj Mandir
Delhi110018
Through its Proprietor
Ajay Khattar
Also at:
85B, F G Vikas Puri
New Delhi ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 13.10.2009.
Date of Arguments : 08.05.2012.
Date of Judgment : 17.05.2012.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 2,27,694/.
Suit No. 764/09 No. 1 of 4
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.2,27,694/ has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that Sh. Sidharth Sharma is the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank and is authorized to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. It is further stated that the defendant approached and requested the plaintiff bank for the grant of financial assistance in the nature of Overdraft Credit Facility. The plaintiff had agreed to sanction to the defendant, Over Draft Facility for an amount of Rs 3,50,000/ vide loan account no. L8DEL00012810628 and the defendant had executed a vide Master Facility Agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 29.03.08 whereby the defendant accepted to the terms and conditions of the Master Facility Agreement. It is further submitted that by accepting the terms and conditions of the Master Facility Agreement, the defendant had clearly understood that the facility was extended to the defendant, only for 12 months subject to renewal of the same at periodic intervals wherein the facilities may be continued/ cancelled/ reduced depending upon the conduct and utilization of the facilities or is payable at demand by the plaintiff bank. It is submitted that the plaintiff bank had disbursed a sum of Rs 3,50,000/ assuming the genuineness of the documents submitted by the defendant and the defendant agreed to repay the same in terms of Suit No. 764/09 No. 2 of 4 the agreement and had agreed to pay interest @ 2.75% p.a. over the sum of the ICICI Bank Benchmark Advanced rate and the cash credit risk outstanding, plus applicable Interest Tax or other statutory levy, if any. As on date of the agreement Benchmark Advance Rate is 15.75% the cash credit risk premium is 050% p.a. and the Applicable Rate Facility is 19% p.a. It is further submitted that after availing the said overdraft limit of Rs 5,00,000/, the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the facility either towards principal or interest or charges thereon and thus, the plaintiff bank was forced to recall the overdraft facility available to the defendant by way of sending a demand notice dated 19.08.2009 to him thereby calling upon the defendant to make payment of Rs 2,27,694/ along with applicable interest. Despite issuance of legal notice, however, the defendant has failed and neglected to pay the entire dues of the plaintiff bank and hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs 2,27,694/.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant. However, when the defendant failed to appear, he was proceeded exparte by my learned predecessor vide order dated 20.05.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its exparte evidence and examined Sh. Anuj Jain, attorney of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Anuj Jain, attorney of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the power of attorney Ex. PW1/A, Application form (Loan) Ex. PW1/B, Master Facility Agreement dated 29.03.2008 Ex. PW1/C, Suit No. 764/09 No. 3 of 4 demand notice dated 19.08.2009Ex. PW1/D, statement of account Ex. PW1/E.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff has become entitled for a decree. As per the agreement, the rate of interest is 24% p.a. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. Considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest @ 19% per annum is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of Rs.2,27,694/ alongwith interest @ 19% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (PARVEEN SINGH)
on 17.05.2012. ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
(This judgment contains four pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
each page bears my signature.)
Suit No. 764/09 No. 4 of 4