Delhi District Court
Addl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum- Judge ... vs M/S Brite Packaging on 11 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI,
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM- GUARDIAN JUDGE,
DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 138/12
UNIQUE ID NO. 02406C0083492012
CANARA BANK,
a body corporate Incorporated under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertaking) Act, 1970 (Act No. 5 of
1970) having its head office at 112,
J.C. Road, Banglore and amongst others
a branch office at S. D. Area, New Delhi.
(Through its constituted Attorney) .................. Plaintiff.
Vs.
1.M/S BRITE PACKAGING, Proprietorship Concern RZ-132, Gali No. 10, East Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
2. MR. RAJESH YADAV, Proprietor of M/s Brite Packaging, RZ-132, Gali No. 10, East Sagar Pur, New Delhi. .............Defendants.
CS No. 138/12 Page No. 1 of 6 DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.04.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 25.03.2013
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.04.2013
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
Vide this Ex-parte judgment, I shall dispose of suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for recovery of Rs.33,610/-.
Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present suit are as follows:-
1. In the suit, it is stated that plaintiff is a body Corporate incorporated under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its head office at 112, J. C. Road, Banglore and branches through out India including one at S. D. Area, New Delhi and may sue or be sued in its name.
2. It is stated that Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora is in services of plaintiff bank and presently is working as Manager of plaintiff bank. It is stated that he holds GPA from plaintiff bank having authority to institute present suit and to take all steps which he deem fit in interest of plaintiff bank.
3. It is stated that defendant no. 1 company is maintaining a Current Bank Account bearing no. 0346201201067 with plaintiff bank through it proprietor i.e. defendant no. 2 and the account is CS No. 138/12 Page No. 2 of 6 maintained in books of accounts of defendant company in normal course of banking business.
4. It is stated that during course of banking business, defendant company through its proprietor i.e. defendant no. 2 requested in month of February, 2010 for temporary overdraft facility for Rs.25,000/-.
5. It is stated that plaintiff bank considered request of defendant and cleared cheque bearing no. 513287 dated 15.02.2010 issued by defendant in favour of M/s Ashi Organic India and a temporary clean overdraft was created in account of defendants by plaintiff bank. It is stated that assurance was given by defendants to replenish with sufficient funds to liquidate overdrawing/clean overdraft so granted.
6. It is stated that defendants thereafter did not make any deposit in their account and thus overdrawing permitted by plaintiff bank remained unadjusted and outstanding kept on increasing on account interest from time to time.
7. It is stated that plaintiff bank made various requests/demands for liquidation of dues in account of defendant but to no avail. It is stated that amount of said current CS No. 138/12 Page No. 3 of 6 overdraft facility alongwith interest has not been paid by defendants despite several reminders. It is stated that now total amount due from defendants to plaintiff bank is Rs.33,610/-
including principal, interest and other charges till 19.02.2012. It is stated that liability of defendants no. 1 & 2 is joint and several. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is the principal borrower and defendant no. 2 is proprietor and has executed letter of proprietorship in favour of plaintiff bank. It is stated that cause of action arose in Delhi as current account documents were executed in Delhi and overdraft facility was granted to defendants at plaintiff's bank S.D. Area Branch, New Delhi.
8. Plaintiff has prayed for passing decree in favour of plaintiff and against defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 33,610/- with pendent lite and future interest @17.25% per annum till date of realization and cost of the suit.
9. Defendants were served in ordinary manner through father of defendant no. 2 but that defendants did not appear after service and defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.07.2012.
10. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
CS No. 138/12 Page No. 4 of 611. Plaintiff in ex-parte evidence examined Sh. S. K. Kashyap as PW-1. PW-1 has relied upon his affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A, copy of General Power of Attorney vide Ex. PW-1/1, Original account opening form and letter of proprietorship of defendants vide Ex. PW-1/2, Ex. PW-1/3 respectively, legal notice dated 29.10.2010 vide Ex. PW-1/4 and statement of account for General Advances of defendant no. 1 vide Ex. PW-1/5.
12. PW-1 has authority to depose before Court on behalf of plaintiff bank stands proved in view of copy of GPA in his favour (Ex. PW-1/1) remaining unrebutted. The factum of defendant no. 1 having a current bank account with plaintiff bank's branch stands proved in view of Ex. PW-1/2 remaining unrebutted. Factum of defendant no. 2 being proprietor of defendant no. 1 stands proved in view of Ex. PW-1/3 remaining unrebutted. Factum of defendants being in liability of Rs.33,610/- towards plaintiff bank stands proved in view of Ex. PW-1/5 (statement of account for general advances of defendant no. 1) remaining unrebutted.
13. The fact of plaintiff providing overdraft facility to the defendant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- stands proved on account of Ex. PW-1/5 remaining unrebutted. In view of these facts, suit CS No. 138/12 Page No. 5 of 6 of plaintiff is liable to be decreed. Accordingly decree is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.33,610/- with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of present suit till date of realization.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 11.04.2013 Sonu Agnihotri JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS No. 138/12 Page No. 6 of 6