Delhi District Court
Syndicate Bank vs Anil Kumar on 17 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DHEERAJ MOR: ACJcumCCJcum
ARC (SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Civil Suit No:109/16
CNR NO DLSW030006472016
Syndicate Bank
Constituted under Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, Having Its Head Office,
At Manipal, In Karnataka and one of its
branch office at Sector23A,
Dwarka, Delhi
Through its Authorised Officer
Sh. Rajeev Jagota
...................Plaintiff
vs.
1.Anil Kumar S/o Birendra Pal Singh House no.179, Block H, Dharmpura Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi110043.
2.Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Sumer Singh House no.18, Ugrasen Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi110043.
................Defendants Date of Institution : 30.05.16 Date of reserving order : 17.03.18 Date of Judgment : 17.03.18 ExPARTE JUDGMENT:
1. This is a summary suit under Order 37 CPC, filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.2,02,058.86/ Page no.1 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. CS no.109/16
alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ Rs.18% per annum from 21.05.2016 till the date of its realization with cost of the present suit. Vide order dated 24.04.17, at the request of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the present suit was converted into an ordinary suit for recovery.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance for a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/ under its Personal Banking Schemes for the purpose of domestic need vide application form dated 07.05.2012. Plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan and disbursed it in his loan account no.91407630000276. It is further averred that in consideration of aforesaid loan facility, defendant no.1 executed the original General Agreement dated 08.05.2012 and other document. Vide said agreement, he agreed to repay the said loan alongwith interest @ 10.5% per annum by way of 60 EMIs of Rs. 4,862/ each upto 30.04.2017. It is further averred that defendant no.2 stood as a guarantor for repayment of said loan and he executed a guarantee agreement of even date.
3. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after availing the financial assistance, defendants started defaulting in repaying the outstanding dues together with interest and all its related dues. Plaintiff further avers that defendants were informed time to time that due to non payment of outstanding dues, the account would be classified as NPA but they failed to regularize the account.
4. It is further averred that despite repeated requests, reminders and demand, defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount/ regularize the said account and consequently the loan account was classified as NPA on 26.12.13. It is further Page no.2 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CS no.109/16averred that plaintiff bank sent a demand notice dated 24.09.14 to the defendants to pay the remaining outstanding amount but they neglected to pay the outstanding amount despite service of the notice. Therefore, the present suit for recovery of aforesaid amount of Rs.2,02,058.86/ alongwith pendetelite and future interest @ 18% per annum has been filed by the plaintiff bank.
5. Defendant no.2 was duly served through summons but he failed to appear and therefore, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 02.03.2017.
6. Defendant no.1 was served through publication in newspaper titled as "Veer Arjun" dated 23.08.17 as well as by way of affixation. Despite service, the said defendant also failed to appear and thus, he was also proceeded ex parte vide order dated 21.09.2017. Accordingly, the matter is proceeded for ex parte plaintiff evidence.
7. The plaintiff bank has examined only one witness in its ex parte evidence. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, AR of the plaintiff bank has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He has also tendered his additional affidavit Ex.PW1/B. He has relied upon the following documents:
(a). Copy of power of attorney in his favour is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);
(b). Copy of Loan application form dated 07.05.2012 is marked as mark A. (4 pages) (The same is Ex.PW1/2 in the affidavit, however, in view of non production of the original document, the same is de exhibited);
(c). Original general agreement dated 08.05.2012 is Ex.PW1/3;
(d). Guarantee agreement(3 pages) dated 08.05.2012 is Ex.PW1/4;
Page no.3 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CS no.109/16(e). NPA Certificate is Ex.PW1/5;
(f). Recall notice dated 24.09.2014 Ex. PW1/6;
(h).Copy of notice dated 16.03.16 alongwith original postal receipts Ex. PW1/7;
(h). Statement of account is Ex.PW1/8; and
(i). Ex.PW1/1A (colly. running into five pages) i.e statement of loan account no. 91407630000276 in the name of defendant no.1/Anil Kumar alongwith statement of saving account no. 91082010015667 in the name of defendant no.2/Vinod Kumar .
Thereafter ex parte Plaintiff Evidence was closed.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.
9. The testimony of PW1 has remained unimpeached. The documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 have corroborated the version of PW1 regarding advancement of loan to defendant no.1. He has categorically and unequivocally testified that the aforesaid documents were duly considered and signed by the defendants towards their lawful liability. Further, the plaintiff has proved all the relevant documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/8 & Ex.PW1/1A (colly. running into five pages). The suit of the plaintiff has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted as none has appeared on behalf of defendants to cross examine the plaintiff's witness. In view of the aforesaid documents and testimony of PW1, there exists no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, all the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted and documents placed on record stand duly proved. By virtue of the unimpeached testimony of PW1 and the statement of account of defendant no.1 Ex.PW1/8 placed on record by him, I am satisfied that a total amount of Page no.4 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CS no.109/16Rs.2,02,058.86/ is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank towards their joint and several legal liability.
10. The first cause of action to institute the present suit arose on 08.05.12. Thereafter, the cause of action to institute this case arose when the loan account of defendant no.1 was declared NPA on 26.12.2013, which was repayable upto 30.04.2017. The present suit was instituted on 30.05.2016. Thus, the present suit was instituted within three years of the declaration of the said account of the defendant no.1 as NPA. Therefore, the present suit is filed within the statutory period of limitation. Further, the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as transaction between the parties took place within the jurisdiction of Dwarka Courts and further, both the defendants are residents of Najafgarh, New Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Furthermore, since the value of the suit is less than Rs. 3,00,000/, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this case.
11. In respect of interest, the plaintiff has claimed interest @18 % per annum in his prayer clause of the present suit. However, I am of the considered opinion that the said rate of interest is unreasonable and exorbitant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum would serve the ends of justice.
12. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against both the defendants for a sum of Rs.2,02,058.86/(Rupees Two Lakhs Two Thousand Fifty Eight and Eighty Six paise only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Page no.5 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CS no.109/16filing of suit till its realization. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said decreetal amount.
13. Cost of the suit is assessed as Rs. 5,500/ and it is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
14. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Dheeraj Mor) today i.e on 17.03.18 ACJ/CCJ/ARC:South West District Digitally Dwarka Courts: New Delhi.
signed by
DHEERAJ
DHEERAJ MOR
MOR Date:
2018.03.17
12:16:26
+0530
Page no.6 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CS no.109/16
Civil Suit No:109/16
CNR NO DLSW030006472016
Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
17.03.18
Present: Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant no.1 is already ex parte vide order dated 21.09.17.
Defendant no.2 is already ex parte vide order dated 02.03.17.
Final arguments are heard. Case file is carefully perused.
Vide separate judgment of even date announced in the open court, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against both the defendants for a sum of Rs.2,02,058.86/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Two Thousand Fifty Eight and Eighty Six paise only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said decreetal amount.
Cost of the suit is assessed as Rs. 5,500/ and it is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) ACJARCCCJ (SW) Dwarka Courts: 17.03.18 Page no.7 of 6 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CS no.109/16