Bangalore District Court
Vijaya Bank vs Mr.T.Mohan on 6 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.V.S.DHARWADKAR, B.Com., L.L.B.,(Spl)
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 6th day of March 2015.
O.S.No.8234/2014
PLAINTIFF : Vijaya Bank,
Victoria Road Branch
Bangalroe-560 047
Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager
Divya Devadiga.
(By Sri V.S., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Mr.T.Mohan
S/o.Angaraj
Aged about 47 years
Residing at No.4
4th Cross, Nissan House
Austin Town,
Bangalore-560 047.
(Ex-parte)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs.1,21,075/- from the defendant with interest @ 14.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of suit till recovery.
2 O.S.No.8234/2014
2. The plaint averments in brief are as under:
That the plaintiff is a bank having its head office at Trinity Circle, Bangalore and a branch office at Victoria Road, Bangalore.
It is stated that on 10.01.2012 the defendant had obtained the secured loan of Rs.72,000/- and an OD Laghu Udyami loan of Rs.80,000/- for his business purpose and has executed on demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff bank on 10.01.2012 agreeing to repay the secured loan of Rs.72,000/- in 48 EMIs of Rs.2,110/- along with interest @ 12.50% per annum compounded with monthly rests and 2% more in case of default. It is also further stated that the defendant has hypothecated his Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-01-M-5671 infavour of the plaintiff bank and executed hypothecation deed on 10.01.2012 and he has also executed on demand promissory note in respect of OD Laghu Udhyami agreeing to repay the said amount in one year along with interest @ 12.50% per annum compounded with monthly rests and to pay 2% more in case of default. It is further stated that the defendant has also hypothecated the raw materials, consumables and gas stove cylinders etc., towards the 3 O.S.No.8234/2014 laghu udhyami loan and has executed agreement deed dated 10.01.2012. It is stated that the defendant failed to repay both the loans inspite of legal notice dated 16.10.2014 and an amount of Rs.40,673/- towards the secured loan and an amount of Rs.80,402/- towards the OD Laghu udhyami loan is now remaining due from the defendant, totally a sum of Rs.1,21,075/- is now remaining due from the defendant and since the defendant did not repay the amount, so the plaintiff bank is obliged to file this suit for the recovery of Rs.1,21,075/- from the defendant.
3. After the suit was filed summons was issued to the defendant for his appearance and in response the defendant failed to appear before the court inspite of service of the summons and so he is placed ex-parte.
4. Thereafter the plaintiff bank inorder to prove the case has examined its Senior Branch Manager Divya Devadiga as PW-1 and has got marked 18 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and has closed the site. There is no any evidence on the part of the defendant.
4 O.S.No.8234/2014
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6. On the basis of the above materials, the following points arise for my consideration.
(1) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,12,075/- from the defendant with interest at 14.50% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of suit till realization ?
(2) What Order ?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1 - In the Affirmative, POINT No.2 - As per the final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the plaintiff bank that on 10.01.2012 the defendant had obtained the secured loan of Rs.72,000/- and an OD Laghu Udyami loan of Rs.80,000/- for his business purpose and has executed on demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff bank on 10.01.2012 agreeing to repay the secured loan of Rs.72,000/- in 48 EMIs of Rs.2,110/- along with interest @ 12.50% per annum compounded with monthly rests and 2% more in case of default. It is also further stated that the 5 O.S.No.8234/2014 defendant has hypothecated his Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-01-M-5671 infavour of the plaintiff bank and executed hypothecation deed on 10.01.2012 and he has also executed on demand promissory note in respect of OD Laghu Udhyami agreeing to repay the said amount in one year along with interest @ 12.50% per annum compounded with monthly rests and to pay 2% more in case of default. It is further stated that the defendant has also hypothecated the raw materials, consumables and gas stove cylinders etc., towards the laghu udhyami loan and has executed agreement deed dated 10.01.2012. It is stated that the defendant failed to repay both the loans inspite of legal notice dated 16.10.2014 and an amount of Rs.40,673/- towards the secured loan and an amount of Rs.80,402/- towards the OD Laghu udhyami loan is now remaining due from the defendant, totally a sum of Rs.1,21,075/- is now remaining due from the defendant and since the defendant did not repay the amount, so the plaintiff bank is obliged to file this suit for the recovery of Rs.1,21,075/- from the defendant.
9. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has examined its Senior Branch Manager Sri Divya Devadiga as 6 O.S.No.8234/2014 P.W.1 and P.W.1 in her evidence-cum-affidavit has reiterated the plaint averments. Apart from the oral evidence, the plaintiff bank has also produced the documents namely the loan application at Ex.P.1, On demand Promissory note at Ex.P.2, letter of repayment at Ex.P.3, loan cum hypothecation agreement at Ex.P.4, letter given by defendant at Ex.P.5, receipt at Ex.P.6, letter of authorization at Ex.P.7, on demand promissory note at Ex.P.8, letter of repayment dt.10.1.2001 at Ex.P.9, hypothecation agreement at Ex.P.10, office copy of legal notice at Ex.P.11, office copy of legal notice at Ex.P.12, two postal receipts at Ex.P.13, postal acknowledgement at Ex.P.14 & 15, statement of accounts of term loan account at Ex.P.16, statement of accounts of the OD account at Ex.P.17 and extract showing the payment done by the defendant at Ex.P.18. It may be noted that there is no contrary oral or documentary evidence on the part of the defendant to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and the documents produced by the plaintiff bank. Hence, in the absence of any contrary material on the part of the defendant, I am constrained to believe the evidence of PW-1 and the documents produced by the plaintiff bank. 7 O.S.No.8234/2014
It is stated by PW-1 that certain payments have been made by the defendant after the filing of the suit and Ex.P.18 has been produced to show that payments have been made by the defendant after filing of the suit. According to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.4,700/- towards the OD account and Rs.5,900/- towards the secured loan account has been paid by the defendant. So, when the defendant has made payments after the filing of the suit, the said amount has to be deducted from the total amount and the plaintiff is entitled to the balance amount. So, by looking to the evidence of PW-1 and the documents produced by the plaintiff, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,10,475/- from the defendants with interest @ 14.50% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of suit till realization. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 partly in the Affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff bank.
10. POINT No.2 : After having answered the Point No.1 partly in the Affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff bank, I hold that the suit filed by the plaintiff bank is fit to be decreed with costs. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
8 O.S.No.8234/2014
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff bank is hereby decreed in part with costs as under.
The defendant is held liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,475/- (Rs.1,21,075/- - Rs.4,700/- + Rs.5,900/- = Rs.10,600 i.e., Rs.1,21,075/- - Rs.10,600/- = Rs.1,10,475/-) to the plaintiff bank with interest at 14.50% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of suit till realization. If the defendant fails to pay the decretal amount within the stipulated period of 30 days, then the plaintiff bank is at liberty to sell the hypothecated raw materials, consumables and gas stove cylinders etc., and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the loan account of the defendant. If the sale proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the decretal amount, then the plaintiff bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of March 2015) (V.S.DHARWADKAR) XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.9 O.S.No.8234/2014
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 Divya Devadiga 27.02.2015
b) Defendant's side: NIL.
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Loan application dt.4.1.2012 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.2 On demand promissory note Ex.P.2(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.3 Letter of repayment dt.10.1.12 Ex.P.3(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.4 Loan cum hypothecation agreement Ex.P.4(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.5 Request letter Ex.P.5 Signature of defendant Ex.P.6 Receipt of payment Ex.P.6(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.7 Letter of authorization Ex.P.7(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.8 On demand promissory note dt.10.1.01 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.9 Letter of repayment dt.10.1.2001 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.10 Hypothecation agreement Ex.P.10(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.11 Office copy of legal notice dt.16.10.14 Ex.P.12 Office copy of legal notice dt.16.10.14 Ex.P.13 2 postal receipts Ex.P.14 & 15 Two postal acknowledgements Ex.P.16 Statement of accounts of the term loan account of defendant Ex.P.16(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.17 Statement of accounts of OD account Ex.P.17(a) Signature of defendant Ex.P.18 Extract 10 O.S.No.8234/2014
b) defendants side : NIL XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE.11 O.S.No.8234/2014
06.03.2015 P-VS D-Exparte Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff bank is hereby decreed with costs.
12 O.S.No.8234/2014
The defendant is held liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,475/- (Rs.1,21,075/- - Rs.4,700/- + Rs.5,900/- = Rs.10,600 i.e., Rs.1,21,075/- - Rs.10,600/- = Rs.1,10,475/-) to the plaintiff bank with interest at 14.50% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of suit till realization.
If the defendant fails to pay the decretal amount within the stipulated period of 30 days, then the plaintiff bank is at liberty to sell the hypothecated raw materials, consumables and gas stove cylinders etc., and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the loan account of the defendant. If the sale proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the decretal amount, then the plaintiff bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally.
Draw decree accordingly.
XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 13 O.S.No.8234/2014