Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Mr. Akash Attree on 7 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF HARJEET SINGH JASPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No.538408/16
In re:
State Bank of India,
A body corporate constituted under
the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having
its Head Office/Central Office/Corporate Office
at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai - 440024, one of its Local Head Office at
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 01 and having
one of its Branch at DTU and RACPC at A5,
Pearl Best HeightI, Netaji Subhash Palace,
New Delhi. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1.Mr. Akash Attree S/o Sh. Mangat Ram Attree
2. Mr. Mangat Ram Attree Sh. Ramdhari Attree Both At : R/o E2/71, 1st Floor, Sector - 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089 Suit no. 538408/16 Page 1 of 7 State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr.
Both Also At : E2/86, Ground Floor, Sector - 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089 ...... Defendants Date of Institution : 08.10.2016 Date Reserve for orders : 01.05.2018 Date of Decision : 07.05.2018 EXPARTE JUDGMENT SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the aforementioned suit. This is a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery u/o XXXVII CPC for a sum of Rs.76,391/ alongwith cost, expenses, pendente lite and future interest @ 11.35% per annum with monthly rest till realization.
3. It is stated that Sh. Ashok Kumar Fotedar is Chief Manager in State Bank of India situated at RACPC at A5, Pearl Best Height I, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi and has signed and verified the amended plaint and is fully conversant with the facts of the present suit.
4. It is averred that defendant No.1 being the borrower and Suit no. 538408/16 Page 2 of 7 State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr.
defendant No.2 being father of defendant No.1 as coapplicant cum guardian cum guarantor had approached the plaintiff bank at its DTU Branch for granting of Financial assistance by way of Educational Loan Facility for completion of 3 years Bachelor Degree of Electronics & Communications Engineering from Guru Nanak Dev Polytechnic Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi under SBI Educational Loan Scheme. It is submitted that defendants had submitted their identification, Educational qualification, residence & Income proof etc to the plaintiff in order to avail such facility.
5. Plaintiff after processing their criteria sanctioned & disbursed them a sum of Rs.59,960/ on 30.12.2010 for pursuing the said desired course.
6. It is averred that plaintiff bank considered the request of Cash Credit Facility of defendant No.1 and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ was sanctioned on 26.09.2014 and was disbursed to the defendant No.1 on 30.09.2014. Defendants consciously & voluntarily had executed various security documents including the following documents and created various securities in favour of the Plaintiff for repayment and the defendant No.2 has also stood the guarantor for the defendant No.1:
a) SBI Loan Application
b) Appraisal Note Suit no. 538408/16 Page 3 of 7 State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr.
c) Sanction Note
d) Agreement for Term Loan
e) Annexure I
f) Operate Letter
g) Undertaking by the Defendants Defendants had also given certain supporting documents to the plaintiff in their favour to concrete their entitlement for the said loan. Defendants had undertaken & agreed to repay the loan amounts in 84 EMI of Rs.1038/ in terms of Agreement containing schedule.
7. Defendants after availing the aforesaid loan from the Plaintiff Bank, failed to repay the EMI per month. Plaintiff informed both the defendants about the default but defendants kept on assuring that sooner or later they will contact the plaintiff and regularize the said account. But defendants failed to do the same. Plaintiff gave more than ample opportunity to realize their legal amounts from both the defendants. Various letters and reminders were sent to the defendants but defendants did not respond.
8. It is further stated that plaintiff had also served a legal notice dated 25.07.2016 vide speed post on the defendants asking them to return Rs.77,928/ as the loan sanctioned to them Suit no. 538408/16 Page 4 of 7 State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr.
was recalled. Defendants paid certain amount after receiving first legal notice but failed to pay the aforesaid amount with interest. It is submitted by the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.64,460/ alongwith interest accrued from 30.06.2016 to 07.10.2016 of Rs.11,831/ is due on the plaintiff totaling Rs.76,391/. It is further stated that plaintiff is also entitled to further interest thereon @ 11.35 % with monthly rests from the date of institution of this Suit till realization. Hence, the present suit.
9. It is prayed that defendants may be ordered and declared to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.76,391/ alongwith pendetelite and future interest at 11.35% p.a with monthly rest from the date of filing of the suit till realization and costs of the suit.
10. Summons issued against defendants No. 1 and 2 were received back with the report "premises found locked". Defendants could not be served through the ordinary means as fresh address of defendants were not available. Defendants were served by means of publication in the newspaper. But defendants did not put their appearance and the suit was proceeded exparte qua defendants.
11. Plaintiff Bank examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg, Chief Manager as PW 1 and proved the following documents : Suit no. 538408/16 Page 5 of 7 State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr.
a) Ex. PW 1/A is the copy of power of attorney.
b) Ex. PW 1/B (colly.) are originals of the loan application & Proposal forms etc.
c) Ex. PW 1/C (colly.) are copies of the documents qua intended course.
d) Ex. PW 1/D is original cum appraisal letter.
e) Ex. PW 1/E is original agreement of terms loan signed & submitted by the defendants.
f) Ex. PW 1/F is original annexure - I signed and submitted by the defendants.
g) Ex. PW 1/G is the copy of operation letter.
h) Ex. PW 1/H is the copy of the undertaking by the defendant.
i) Ex. PW 1/I (colly) are other related documents.
j) Ex. PW 1/J (colly) is copies of the legal notice & Ots original postal receipts.
k) Ex. PW 1/K are copies of the loan statements of the defendant.
l) Ex. PW 1/L (colly.) is original of the certificate U/s 2A & 65 B.
m) Ex. PW 1/M (colly) & Ex. PW 1/N (colly.) are the originals of the certificate or accrued interest.
This witness was not cross examined as the defendant remained ex parte. No further PW was examined and the PE was closed on 20.04.2018. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
13. Testimony of PW1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg, Chief Manager of Plaintiff Bank has gone unrebutted in absence of any cross Suit no. 538408/16 Page 6 of 7 State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr. examination on behalf of the defendant. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Furthermore, the documents placed on record vouch in favour of the testimony of the plaintiff.
14. The suit is within limitation.
15. For the reasons assigned herein above, the plaintiff has successfully proved its case. Hence, a decree for the recovery of Rs.76,391/ along with interest @ 11.35% per annum is passed from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the amount. The plaintiff is also awarded the costs of the suit.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed HARJEET Announced in open court SINGH by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL on 07.05.2018 Date: 2018.05.07 JASPAL 14:32:13 +0530 (HARJEET SINGH JASPAL) CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH) ROHINI, NEW DELHI Suit no. 538408/16 Page 7 of 7
State Bank of India vs. Akash Attree & Anr.