Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India A Corporation ... vs Sh. Ruk Mangal Singh (Since Deceased And ... on 3 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI: CIVIL JUDGE, (CENTRAL-02), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. Suit No. 75/2013 State Bank of India a Corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Central Office/Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhawan Madame Cama Road, Mumbai 40024, one of its Local Head Office at 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 and as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi through Deputy Manager/City Case officer Mr. Pritam Singh. .....PLAINTIFF. Versus 1 Sh. Ruk Mangal Singh (Since deceased and represented by his legal heirs.) a) Smt. Rekha Singh (Widow) b) Ms. Sonia (Daughter) c) Ms. Bandita (Daughter) All residents of 3768, Kucha Parmanand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. 2 Sh. Suresh Tomar 33 J, Gali no. 15, Near Gurudwara, Maujpur, Delhi-110053. ......DEFENDANTS Date of Institution: 01.03.2004 Date of Reserving for Judgment: 31.07.2013 Date of Judgment: 03.08.2013 SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 1 of 11 JUDGMENT
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 54,810/- alongwith interest.
2 It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955.
3 It is further stated in the plaint that defendant no. 1 had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of financial assistance by way of loan under Big-Buy Scheme for purchasing of computer alongwith its accessories. Defendant no. 1 had submitted required documents including quotation, his income tax return, ration card, proof of residence of defendant no. 2 etc. The plaintiff bank after examining the proposal and considering economic viability, sanctioned and disbursed to defendant no. 1 a term loan of Rs. 52,000/- on 07.03.2001 which has been duly availed by him for purchasing the computer with accessories. The said loan is secured by hypothecation of computer alongwith its accessories and by third person guarantee of defendant no. 2.
4 It is further stated that in consideration of above loan facility, defendant no. 1 executed the following loan SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 2 of 11 documents:-
a) Application for Loan dated 06.02.2001
b) Hypothecation Agreement under Big-Buy scheme dated 07.03.2001.
c) Guarantee Agreement under Big-Buy scheme dated 07.03.2001.
5 It is further stated that defendant no. 2 stood as a guarantor to defendant no.1 and executed agreement dated 07.03.2001 consciously and after understanding the contents. He, therefore, bound himself co-extensively with defendant no.1.
6 It is also stated that defendant no. 1 had undertaken to pay or deposit the installment of Rs. 1800/- per month in 36 monthly installments commencing w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and he had also agreed to pay interest @ 15 % per annum with quarterly rests subject to variations as per RBI Guidelines. It is further stated that an account no. 01593/031355 was opened with the plaintiff bank in the name of defendant no. 1.
7 It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 failed to maintain the financial discipline and to repay the installments due towards the plaintiff bank and as a result, the SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 3 of 11 defendants have become jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
8 It is also its case that a legal notice dated 26.02.2004 was also sent to the defendants demanding entire payment outstanding in the account of defendant no. 1 but the defendants failed to respond to the same. As per the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank, a sum of Rs. 52,828.57p is due exclusive of accrued interest w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 28.02.2004 amounting to Rs. 1981/-. Therefore, a total amount of Rs. 54,810/- is outstandintg. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
Version of defendant no. 1:-
9 Defendant no. 1 has contested the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the same is not maintainable as it is based upon manipulated documents and has not been signed by a competent person. On merits, defendant no. 1 has denied all the allegations of the plaintiff and has stated that the plaintiff bank had got his signatures on blank papers and therefore, he is not liable to pay the suit amount. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed with special costs.
10 Replication to the written statement of defendant no.SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 4 of 11
1 was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff, denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
11 Defendant no. 2 was served by way of publication in the newspaper, The Statesmen. Despite due service, he never appeared and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.03.2005. Evidence of defendant no. 1 was partly recorded and during the course of proceedings, he died and his LRs were brought on record. However, the LRs of defendant no. 1 failed to appear and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.05.2012.
12 From the pleadings of parties, Ld. Predecessor of this court, vide order dated 17.11.2004, framed the following issues:
1 Whether plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 54,810/-? OPP.
2 Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, at what
rate and for what period? OPP.
3 Whether plaint is duly signed and verified? OPP.
4 Whether suit is not maintainable as based upon
manipulated documents? OPD.
5 Relief.
SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 5 of 11
13 In order to discharge its onus, the plaintiff has
examined Sh. S.S. Kharola as PW-1 and Sh. Rajbir Singh as PW-2. On the other hand, the deceased defendant no.1 had examined himself as DW-1. However, DW-1 was only partly cross-examined and remaining cross-examination was deferred as he had shown his inability to answer since he was not carrying his spectacles, therefore, his testimony cannot be considered for the purposes of deciding the present case to the extent that he was not cross-examined.
14 After conclusion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. I have carefully perused the record and given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and my findings on various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 3:-
Whether plaint is duly signed and verified? OPP.
15 Onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. In order to prove this issue, PW-1 deposed that "I was posted as Field Officer in the plaintiff bank at relevant time in Ghonda, Delhi-53 branch. I identify the signature of Sh. B.C. Saxena, the then branch manager in State Bank of India, SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 6 of 11 Ghonda branch who had signed the plaint and instituted the suit against the defendants as I have seen him writing and signing. I am conversant with the facts of the case on the basis of record maintained by the plaintiff bank in normal course of its business." In his cross-examination, PW-1 also deposed that "It is correct that I have not signed the plaint as well as the affidavit. It was signed by Mr. Saxena, Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank."
16 Perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaint has been signed and verified by Mr. B.C. Saxena and the stamp of State Bank of India, Branch Manager has also been affixed.
Therefore, this court is of the view that the plaint has been duly signed and verified and accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4:-
Whether suit is not maintainable as based upon manipulated documents? OPD.
17 Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
DW-1 deposed that "The suit of the plaintiff is based upon manipulation documents. The plaintiff bank has taken the signature of deponent on blank papers and filled up the same according to their choice. No loan documents has been executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff bank."
SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 7 of 11However, DW-1 was only partly cross-examined and cross- examination was deferred when he was confronted with some documents and he had shown his inability to answer. Thereafter, he did not appear for cross-examination and accordingly, his above mentioned testimony cannot be read into evidence. Therefore, the defendants have not been able to prove that the case of the plaintiff is based upon manipulated documents. Moreover, the loan documents have been appropriately printed on State Bank of India documents and have been duly signed by deceased defendant no.1. Careful comparison of the signatures of deceased defendant no.1 on the loan documents and the written statement shows that they are very similar and have been framed and put on the paper in the same manner. Therefore, this court is of the view that the documents have not been manipulated and accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NOs. 1 & 2:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 54,810/-? OPP.
Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 8 of 11
18 Since both these issues are connected with each other, requiring common discussion and appreciation of evidence, they shall be dealt with together.
19 Onus to prove these issues was placed upon the plaintiff. In order to prove its case, PW-1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and to prove that the deceased defendant no. 1 had taken a loan and defendant no. 2 had given a guarantee, he has placed on record Application for Loan dated 06.02.2001 (Ex. PW-1/1); Hypothecation Agreement under Big-Buy Scheme dated 07.03.2001 (Ex. PW-1/2); Guarantee Agreement under Big-Buy Scheme dated 07.03.2001(Ex. PW-1/3); Arrangement letter dated 07.03.2001 (Ex. PW-1/4) and cheque delivery letter dated 07.03.2001 (Ex.
PW-1/5). Perusal of these documents shows that the deceased defendant no. 1 had availed a term loan of Rs. 52,000/- from the plaintiff bank.
20 Although, it was the case of the deceased defendant no. 1 that he had not taken any loan facility, he has not been able to prove the same.
21 PW-2 has also deposed that statement of account duly certified as per Banker's Book Evidence Act is Ex. PW-2/6 and the certificate of accrued interest is Ex. PW-2/7. From Ex.
SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 9 of 11PW-2/6, it is clear that an amount of Rs.52,828.57p was payable by the deceased defendant no. 1 as on 20.12.2003 and from Ex. PW-2/7 it is clear that interest of Rs. 1981/- had accrued in favour of the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.04.2003 till 28.02.2004. However, since the statement of account shows the amount due as Rs. 52,828.57p as on 20.12.2003, a further interest cannot be said to have accrued from 01.04.2003 to 20.12.2003. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant interest of Rs. 1981/-. However, the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 15 % per annum w.e.f. 20.12.2003 to 28.02.2004 and interest @ 8 % per annum w.e.f. 29.02.2004 till the date of its realisation.
22 Perusal of record also reveals that defendant no. 2 had stood as a guarantor vide Guarantee Agreement Ex.PW-1/3 and therefore, defendant no. 2 is also jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount. These issues are accordingly decided.
Relief:
23 In view of my findings on the above issues, as discussed above, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the LRs of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 for a sum of Rs.52,828.57p alongwith interest @ 15 % per annum SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 10 of 11 w.e.f. 20.12.2003 to 28.02.2004 and pendentelite and future interest @ 8 % per annum w.e.f. 29.02.2004 till the date of its realisation. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today on this 3rd day of August, 2013.
(Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) Civil Judge, Central-02 Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 11 of 11 SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 12 of 11 CS No. 16/2008 23.05.2013 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant nos. 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.1,52,063/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present suit till its realisation. The suit stands dismissed against defendant no.3. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant nos. 1 & 2. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) CJ/CENTRAL-02/DELHI/23.05.2013 SUIT NO. 75/2013 Page 13 of 11