Delhi District Court
And Its Branch Office vs M/S Deepak Timber & Plywood Company on 11 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA:
DISTRICT JUDGE, (S/W) (COMMERCIAL COURT),
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
CS (COMM) NO.68/19
ID No. DLSW010060642009
In the matter of :
Union Bank of India
Having Head Office At:-
Mangla Devi Temple Road
Mangalore, Karnataka
And Its Branch Office
WZM-6, Shyam Park, Nawada,
New Delhi-110059
Through Its Authorized Representative
Ms. Ragini Gautam
...........PLAINTIFF
versus
1. M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Company
Through its proprietor
Mr. Virender Kumar Kalra
S/o Sh. Tara Chand Kalra
C-9 A, Kiran Garden,
Opposite Metro Pillar No. 716,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.
Also At
M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Company
D-14, Kiran Garden
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
Also At
M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Company
137, 158, Matiala Industrial Area, Matiala
New Delhi-59.
Also At
Flat No. 128, Plot No. 7,
Sector-04, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
2. Mr. Tarun Kalra (Guarantor)
S/o Sh. Virender Kumar Kalra
C-9, A, Kiran Garden
Opposite Metro Pillar No. 716,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.
Also At
Flat No. 128, Plot No. 7,
Sector-4, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
...........DEFENDANTS
Union Bank of India Vs.
M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Co. & Ors. Page No. 1 of 6
CS Comm No.68/19
Date of Institution : 09.05.2019
Date when the case
reserved for Judgment : 11.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Initially, the corporation Bank i.e. the plaintiff bank filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 9,73,542.11 along with all costs and interest @ 13.25% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till realization of money. Vide order dated 12.10.2021, Union Bank of Indian i.e. plaintiff stepped into the shoes of the Corporation Bank in view of merger into Union Bank of India vide notification no. GSR 154 (E) dated 04.03.2020, Govt. of India.
2. The plaintiff is a Bank and is a body corporate incorporated constituted under the bank Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 (Act 3 of 1980). Ms. Ragini Gautam is a constituted Attorney of the plaintiff bank is the duly authorized to file, sign, verify, institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff vide power of attorney both dated 05.10.2009. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff bank with a request to provide the financial assistance for Rs. 9,00,000/- for his business. The defendant no. 2 intended to be guarantor for the said loan facility to be provided to the defendant no.1.
Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Co. & Ors. Page No. 2 of 6 CS Comm No.68/19
3. The plaintiff accepted the said request of the defendants and sanctioned the sanction the facility vide CSI dated 28.02.2012 for Rs. 9,00,000/-. The defendant no. 1 executed the loan documents in favour of the plaintiff on 01.03.2012. The defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor to secure the loan granted to the defendant no. 1 and executed the documents on 01.03.2012. The defendants no. 1 and 2 agreed with terms and conditions and acknowledged/signed the CSI dated 28.02.2012. The aforesaid loan facility was secured by hypothecated of movable/assets/debts including stocks and book debts and the defendants also agreed to pay interest and other charges to the plaintiff bank on the principal amount of the said loan from time to time as per the terms and conditions set out in the said loan agreements. However, the defendants failed to observe the terms and conditions of the loan agreements. Consequently, the defendant's loan account became irregular and the defendants failed to regularize the said account. As such, the defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline and also failed to pay the amount despite several requests of the plaintiff. Left with no option, the plaintiff sent the legal notice dated 28.02.2019 to the defendant but of no use. Left with no option, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
4. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. The defendants were served through publication in the newspaper. However, despite due service, the defendants failed to appear and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.10.2021 passed by ld. Predecessor of this court.
Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Co. & Ors. Page No. 3 of 6 CS Comm No.68/19
5. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has examined its authorized representative Ms. Amita Dhiran as PW-1 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/1A. She proved the following documents:-
1. Copy of Power of attorney Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Original CSI dated 28.02.2012 Ex.PW1/2.
3. Original Letter of proprietorship Ex.PW1/3.
4. Original request for overdraft facilities/cash credit limit Ex.PW1/4.
5. Original Demand Promissory Note Ex.PW1/5.
6. Original Take delivery letter to DPN Ex.PW1/6.
7. Original Guarantee Agreement executed by defendant no. 2 Ex.PW1/7.
8. Original common deed of Hypothecation of movables/assets/debts Ex.PW1/8.
9. Original General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/9.
10. Original letter of undertaking and declaration from the borrower Ex.PW1/10.
11. Original acknowledgement of debt dated 18.02.2015, 19.08.2015 and 21.02.2017 Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 (Colly).
12. Copy of demand notice dated 28.02.2019 alongwith original postal receipts Ex.PW1/14 and Ex.PW1/15 (Colly).
13. Computer generated copy of accounts statement Ex.PW1/16.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the material available on record.
Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Co. & Ors. Page No. 4 of 6 CS Comm No.68/19
7. PW1 in her examination-in-chief through affidavit Ex.PW1/1A has deposed the facts as narrated in the plaint mentioned above. She proved the loan documents which reveal that the defendants had applied for a cash credit limit of Rs.9,73,542.11 and the same was sanctioned by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. Statement of account Ex.PW1/16 mentions the amount paid by and outstanding against the defendants which they failed to pay despite the demand notice. There is no cross-examination of PW1. As such, the testimony of PW-1 and the documents proved by her remained unrebutted.
8. As mentioned above, vide order dated 12.10.2021 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court, the defendants proceeded ex-parte. Hence, there was no occasion to lead the defendants evidence.
9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of Rs. 9,73,542.11.
10. The rate of interest @ 13.25 % per annum is on higher side. In the circumstances of the case, a justifiable rate of interest is awarded to the plaintiff @ 6% per annum on Rs. 9,73,542.11 for pendent elite and future period till realization.
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is allowed. The plaintiff is held entitled to decree of Rs. 9,73,542.11 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the amount against the defendants no. 1 and 2 jointly and Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Co. & Ors. Page No. 5 of 6 CS Comm No.68/19 severally. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, On this 11th day of July, 2022 (PANKAJ GUPTA) District Judge, S/W (Commercial Court):
NEW DELHI Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Deepak Timber & Plywood Co. & Ors. Page No. 6 of 6 CS Comm No.68/19