Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Limited vs Aman Deep Singh on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE(COMMERCIAL)-07(CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 379/2021
CNR No. DLCT010014172021
(Old case : 20 oldest cases of the Court)
DLCT010014172021
M/S ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Having its Registered Office At:
ICICI Bank tower, Near Chakli Circle,
Old Padra Road, Vadodara-39007 (Gujarat)
Having its Branch Office At:
E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055
........Plaintiff.
Versus
Amandeep Singh
S/o Sh. Manjit Singh, 797, DDA Tenaments, Vishal Enclave,
Tagore Garden, Delhi-110027
Also At
Amandeep Singh, S/O. Manjit Singh
Designation- Process Server, Emp ID-44382105
Emp Code:44382105, District & Sessions Judges Office,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054.
....Defendant.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:09:18 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 1 of 34
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.12,21,302/-
Date of institution of suit : 29.01.2021
First Date before this court : 05.03.2024
Date of hearing of final argument : 28.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.03.2025
Appearance(s): Sh. Alok Kumar, Adv., Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Amit Sharma, Adv., Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the suit of Plaintiff-bank for recovery of Rs.12,21,302/- alongwith interest thereon @ 24% per annum pendentelite and future from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. The plaintiff has also prayed for costs of the suit.
(B) PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that:-
2.1) the plaintiff is a banking company within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act and is inter alia engaged in the business of banking, financing and providing loan facilities to its customers under various schemes such as personal loan, auto loan etc. The plaintiff bank is having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007, Gujarat and its branch office at E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension, District Centre, near Jhandewalan Metro Station, New Delhi-
110055. The present case relates to Jhandewalan Branch of the plaintiff Digitally signed by bank represented by its Authorized Representative namely Mr. Pankaj MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 2 of 34 Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:09:27
+0530
Jain stated to be empowered to sign, institute and prosecute the suit and do all such acts and deeds on behalf of the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff has, however, later substitute its Authorized Representative, as prayed and allowed vide order of the Court dated 24.11.2023. Accordingly, Mr. Jitender Mehindiratta was substituted as Authorized Representative of the plaintiff -bank.
2.2.) It has been averred in the plaint that the defendant approached and requested the plaintiff bank for grant of Personal loan of Rs.8,70,000/- in the month of November, 2017 and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions applicable at the time of execution of loan documents and upon assurance by the defendant that he shall make the payment regularly as per the repayment schedule, the plaintiff-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.8,70,000/- on 14.11.2017 and disbursed an amount of Rs.8,37,663/- to the defendant vide loan account no.LPDEL00036664197 which was remitted in the account of defendant on 14.11.2017 after deducting process fee and other charges. The defendant agreed to pay the said loan amount along with interest @ 13.50% per annum in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.19,989/- each. On executing the Credit Facility Application Form, the defendant was also agreed to pay the plaintiff bank, a penal interest @ 24% per annum on the defaulted equated monthly installments/pending dues. Defendant pursuant to the sanction of the aforesaid loan amount, failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment and payment of EMIs became irregular. The defendant as on the date of filing of the present Digitally signed by MUKESH suit, has paid an amount of Rs.1,39,923/- and had defaulted for MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:09:34 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 3 of 34 repayment of Rs.6,19,659/- (31 EMIs) as per Statement of Account dated 11.01.2021.
2.3) Repeated requests, reminders and notices were sent by and on behalf of the plaintiff-bank from time to time, requesting and advising the defendant to clear outstanding loan amount, but the defendant completely failed and neglected to pay the same. The plaintiff-bank then recalled the Loan Facility available to the defendant by way of sending Recall Notice dated 29.08.2020 demanding to pay the whole outstanding amount.
Defendant failed to make the payment against dues, despite repeated calls and demand notice. Hence, the plaintiff-bank has come up with the present suit for Recovery of outstanding amount of Rs.12,21,302/- due as on 11.01.2021 plus future and pendentelite interest @ 24% per annum, from the date of filing of the present suit till realization along with costs of the suit.
(C) DEFENDANT'S CASE:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement thereby taking various preliminary objections that:-
3.1) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the parties. It has been averred that the agent of the plaintiff bank visited the residence and office of the defendant under the garb of pre-sanction survey and asked the defendant to visit the branch at Sector-7, Rohini Delhi for the purpose of signing the papers for applying the loan but the defendant showed his inability. Thereafter, the MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH agent of the plaintiff bank offered the defendant that he would take KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:09:41 +0530CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 4 of 34 signatures of the defendant at the place suitable to the defendant. Accordingly, the agent visited the residence of the defendant and obtained signatures of the defendant on various blank papers. Apart thereof, the defendant has denied all the averrments made in the plaint.
3.2) It has been further averred that the agent of the plaintiff bank approached the defendant in the month of October, 2017 and offered that there is a Diwali Scheme of plaintiff bank for granting personal loan to Government Servants at a concessional rate of interest between 6 to 7%, according to the CIBIL score. As such, according to the said scheme, the defendant is entitled for personal loan of Rs.10,00,000/- repayable with an interest @7.6% per annum.
3.3) The plaintiff's agents visited the residence of the defendant and obtained signatures of the defendant on various blank papers in order to provide loan and thereafter, the agent of the plaintiff bank informed the defendant that plaintiff bank is unable to sanction and release the personal loan of Rs.10 lacs at the rate of 7.60% per annum and informed that bank has revised its loan and interest policy and and can only grant the loan with revised rate of interest @ 13 to 14 % per annum, to which, the defendant refused to avail being on a higher interest rate and asked the agent of the plaintiff Bank to return all the papers to the defendant forthwith.
3.4) After 2-3 days, the said agent called the defendant and offered that he has a private financier who can grant the loan to the defendant but the defendant has to issue certain blank cheques as security but the same shall be granted @ 9% per annum with further condition that half of the Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR loan amount would be immediately returned back to the agent and KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:09:49 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 5 of 34 remaining amount shall be treated as loan.
3.5) The defendant under bonafide belief agreed for the same and handed over the blank cheques as security for the said loan to the agent of plaintiff bank. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- was credited into the account of the defendant. After crediting the same, the agent contacted the defendant and asked for refund of half of the said amount. The defendant after withdrawal of the certain amount from the bank as well as after arranging from his resources, returned back Rs.4,40,000/- to the said agent and now the defendant has to repay a sum of Rs.4,30,000/-, which was duly repaid by the defendant through cheque and cash.
3.6) The defendant also took the objection that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as no cause of action has been arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The defendant contended that the agent of the plaintiff bank informed him that the branch, from where, the loan is to be sanctioned would be Sector-
8, Rohini. However, as per the documents filed by the plaintiff bank on record, it clearly reveals that Sector -8 Rohini Branch has granted the loan to the defendant and even the account is maintained with the said branch. The defendant further contended that as per the application form filed by the plaintiff bank on record, the address of the defendant has been shown at Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
3.7) It has also been claimed that though the plaintiff has relied upon certain electronic records but failed to file any Declaration on oath specifying the conditions as laid down under Order XI Rule 6(3) CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes. Therefore, the said documents Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR cannot be read in evidence for want of aforesaid Declaration.
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:09:56
+0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 6 of 34
3.8) It has also been averred that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true, correct and material facts from this Court and the present suit filed by the plaintiff is in complete abuse of process of law and has been filed just to cover up its own wrongs and misdeeds.
3.9) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint are denied as incorrect and it has been stated by the defendant that the agent of the plaintiff approached the defendant and assured that the defendant being a Govt. employee is eligible for personal loan with lower rate of interest than in the market for other borrowers. Accordingly, the said agent obtained the signatures of the defendant on various blank papers, documents and testimonials of the defendant on the assurance that a loan of Rs.10 Lakhs will be granted to the defendant with rate of interest of 7.60% per annum.
3.10) The defendant denied that he approached the plaintiff bank in the month of November, 2017 and presented himself that he requires a loan facility of Rs.8.70 Lakhs for his personal use/business purposes, or that he is financially sound or assured that he shall be making regular payments of loan in instalments.
3.11) It has been contended that the defendant never executed any Credit Facility Application Form. Rather, the signature of the defendant was obtained by agent of the plaintiff on loan application and other various blank papers, which were either filled by said agent of the plaintiff or its employees later on. The defendant never took the loan in Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA question, therefore, question of agreeing to pay the plaintiff a penal KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05 GUPTA 17:10:09 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 7 of 34 interest @ 24% per annum on default equated monthly instalment/pending dues does not arise.
3.12) It has been further contended that the plaintiff never granted any loan to the defendant nor the defendant has availed any loan, thus, question of casting any obligation or discharge of any liability does not arise. It has been further contended that the plaintiff bank has allegedly stated that the loan was to be repaid in 60 installments and out of which 31 instalments were defaulted at the time of filing of suit and has been admitted by the plaintiff bank that 29 installments were paid, the amount of which comes to Rs.5,79,681/-, but the plaintiff bank has allegedly stated in the plaint that the defendant has paid only Rs.1,39,923/- as per the statement of account, thus, the plaintiff is liable to prove where the remaining amount has gone. Thus, the defendant is not liable to pay any single penny to the plaintiff, rather, the plaintiff is liable to pay compensation and cost.
3.13) It has been contended that neither the Loan Recall Notice dated 29.08.2020 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant nor received by the defendant, as the same had been sent on incomplete and wrong address. However, the alleged notice was not recalled the entire loan, but only called for overdue alleged installments. However, till the account is not classified as NPA by any bank/financial institution after following due process prescribed under Master Circular/s on Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning issued by the Reserve Bank of India, no bank or financial institution can recall any Digitally loan. Therefore, in the absence of the classification of account as NPA, signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit.
GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05
17:10:15
+0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 8 of 34
3.14) It is contended that the plaintiff is neither entitled to nor the defendant is liable to pay any amount of Rs.12,21,302/- as alleged as on one hand, the plaintiff claims that on request of defendant it issued the letter dated 11.01.2021 for prepayment, but on the other hand showing late payment penalty of Rs.1,98,759.00; similarly claimed Rs.15,104/- as cheque bouncing charges and other charges and Rs.46,889.49p. as prepayment charges @ 5.9% on outstanding principal and Rs.2,12,557/-
interest on pending installment, without any basis, details and proof. Even, the same does not bear any signature or stamp of authorized officer of bank, showing that who issued the said letter to the defendant, which is inadmissible in evidence. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
3.15) It has been further contended that the defendant was not served with any notice or information for any pre-institution mediation. The defendant further denied that the loan was disbursed to the defendant or that the same was payable at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension Branch of the plaintiff bank, or that the cause of action were also arose within the jurisdiction of this Court or that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Rather the agent of the plaintiff informed that branch of plaintiff at Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi would be the branch, which will sanction/grant the loan. The defendant has denied that no cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendant as alleged for the reason that the plaintiff bank has made false averments in the entire plaint, Digitally signed by MUKESH therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy exemplary MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR costs.
GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:10:29
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 9 of 34
4. The plaintiff has preferred Replication to the Written Statement filed by the defendant, denying all the averrments made by the defendant in his Written Statement. The plaintiff bank has stated that neither any of the agent of the plaintiff bank has offered interest @ 7.6% per annum to the defendant nor has obtained the signatures of defendant on blank papers. Moreover, the defendant himself had presented the Preliminary Credit Facility Form as well as the Credit Facility Application Form and the plaintiff bank after considering his request, disbursed the loan amount after deducting the agreed charges. The said payment was disbursed to the defendant in his account bearing no.52510268427 maintained with Standard Charted Bank. The plaintiff bank further reiterated that the defendant after receiving loan amount has paid approximately Rs.1,39,923/- and defaulted approximately 31 EMIs as per Statement of Account dated 11.01.2021 which also specify the paid installments, over due installment and future installments and the plaintiff bank nowhere in the plaint has pleaded that 29 installments were paid, amount of which comes to Rs.5,79,681/-.
4.2) The plaintiff bank has further averred that Credit Application Form clearly mentions the address of the branch office of the plaintiff bank as V.T.N.D(Videocon Tower, New Delhi) and has not concealed or suppressed the true, correct and material facts from the court and, therefore, denied that the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
4.3) The plaintiff bank further stated that the suit amount does not Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA include the prepayment charges and the Prepayment Statement in KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:10:37
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 10 of 34
ordinary course is generated upon request of the borrower. The said document is filed just for showing the details of the suit amount upon which, the present claim is based. The plaintiff bank denied that the said Statement of Account is prima facie wrong, contaning wrong, incorrect and unauthorized entries, wrong calculation of interest, wrong application of interest besides unauthorized debits and as such, the plea of the defendant that the present suit is liable to be rejected deserves no merits. The plaintiff has prayed that the written statement be dismissed and suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
(D) CRYSTALISING THE DISPUTE :-
5. On the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record, the following issues were framed for adjudication vide order dated 20.02.2024. The plaintiff has prayed that the written statement be dismissed and suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
ISSUES.
(i) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of privity of contract between the parties ? OPD
(ii) Whether the signatures of the defendant were obtained on blank papers, as alleged ? OPD
(iii) Whether this court does not have the territorial Digitally jurisdiction to decide the present suit ? OPD signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:10:44
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 11 of 34
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant ? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest from the defendant, if so at what rate and for what period ? OPP
(vi) Relief.
6. Pertinent to mention here that an application u/O.XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC for framing of an additional issue was filed on behalf of the defendant for issue regarding the competency and authorization of A.R Sh. Pankaj Jain in view of the specific objection taken by the defendant in paragraph no.7 of the reply on merits in the Written Statement. Accordingly, the court vide order dated 29.08.2024, has framed the following additional issue:-
"Whether Sh. Pankaj Jain, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank is not empowered to sign the plaint or to institute the instant suit?OPD"
Since the issue was recasted, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff prayed for filing of fresh evidence by way of an affidavit and has withdrawn the earlier affidavit dated 30.03.2024.
MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA (E) EVIDENCE LED: KUMAR Date: GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:10:50 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 12 of 34
7. Plaintiff in support of his case examined Sh. Jitender Mehndiratta, its relationship manager as PW-1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath before the Court. He got exhibited the following documents in support of his case.
1. Copy of Power of Attorney in favour of Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) Shri Pankaj Jain earlier AR :
2. Copy of Power of Attorney in favour of Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) present AR Shri Jitender Kumar
3. Original Preliminary Credit Facility Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) Application form:
(containing 4 pages)
4. Original Credit Facility Application form Ex.PW1/4 (colly) alongwith terms and conditions of the loan:
(containing 4 pages)
5. Original Disbursal Memo ExPW1/5 (Containing 2 pages)
6. Loan Recall Notice dated 29.08.2020 Ex.PW1/6 (colly)
7. Foreclosure Statement of Account Ex.PW1/7 (containing 8 pages)
8. Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Ex.PW1/8 Act, 1872 :
9. Certificate u/s 2A of the Banker Book Ex.PW1/9 Evidence Act :
8. The witness was subjected to a detail cross examined by Ld. Counsel Sh. Sharma who has cross examined the witness on the aspect of his relationship with the earlier AR Sh. Pankaj Jain, the personal MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA knowledge regarding the loan agreement LPDEL00036664197, the KUMAR Date:
2025.04.05 GUPTA 17:10:57 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 13 of 34 manner of execution of the loan documents, the documents being supplied by the defendant during the course of the loan transaction at the time of applying the loan and even on the signatures and the photograph of the defendant also. Ld. Counsel for defendant has cross examined the witness to the extent that Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4 were not filled by the defendant and Ex. PW-1/5 was not even signed by the defendant. Questions have also been asked regarding the loan application form Ex. PW-1/4 being not a complete document as also the fact that the documents were executed at Rohini. Similar questions were asked regarding the foreclosure statement, the requirement of certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and the aspect of the rate of interest being charged. The details thereof shall be discussed in subsequent paragraphs at appropriate places.
9. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and vide statement dated 25.03.2025, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.
10. The defendant on its part did not enter the witness box and vide statement dated 27.03.2025 of Ld. Counsel Sh. Sharma, the defendant's evidence was also closed at his request.
(F) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION ON OTHER ISSUES:-
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the entire record including the testimony of PW1 and have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. My issue-wise Digitally signed determination is as under:-
by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:11:04
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 14 of 34
Additional Issue framed by the Court on 29.08.2024.
"Whether Sh. Pankaj Jain, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank is not empowered to sign the plaint or to institute the instant suit?OPD"
12. Since this issue pertain to the competency and authorization of the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank, Sh.Pankaj Jain who has filed the present suit, the court deems it appropriate to adjudicate the same first. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was held up the defendant. However, the defendant has not led any separate evidence in support thereof but has only cross-examined plaintiff's witness PW1 Mr. Jitender Mehndiratta, whose deposition has been tendered as PW1 with his Chief-examination by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A where he has deposed on oath that he is authorized to depose before the Court by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiff-Bank in his favour which is tendered as Ex.PW1/2. The witness has also tendered in evidence the copy of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of earlier Authorized Representative Sh. Pankaj Jain who has filed the present suit as Ex.PW1/1. During cross-examination on this aspect, PW1 has deposed that he was transferred in Jhandewalan Branch in June, 2022 where Sh. Pankaj Jain, the earlier Authorized Representative was working as Relationship Manager but was not aware as to when he was posted in Jhandewalan Division Office. He deposed that he has worked with Sh. Pankaj Jain for the period from June, 2022 till March, 2023 and Mr. Pankaj Jain used to sign the pleadings, fresh suit, Vakalatnama etc in his Digitally signed by presence.
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05
17:11:10
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 15 of 34
13. Order XXIX rule 1 CPC prescribed for suit by or against corporation and laid down that in a suit by or against corporation the pleadings may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or any Director or any other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose the facts of the case. The law in this regard is well settled that either a suit may be filed by the Secretary of the corporation or any Director or by any other person well versed with the facts of the case and competent to depose before the Court, subject to the authorization by the corporation. AIR 1997 SC 3 United Bank of India Vs Naresh Kumar. The plaintiff bank is a banking company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The court has carefully perused the Power of Attorney dated 18.10.2017 Ex.PW1/1 which is executed by the plaintiff bank in favour of Mr. Pankaj Jain, Manager authorizing him to file or prosecute or attend to any suit or legal proceedings by or against the plaintiff bank. This power of attorney is based on the resolution passed in Board of Directors Meeting dated 03.05.2002 and 30.10.2002 and has been duly signed by the Executive Director and General Manager concerned. The defendant has failed to lead any evidence to specify as to on what grounds he is challenging the competence and authorization to sign the pleadings or institute the suit. Neither the defendant has brought any independent witness nor he himself has entered into the witness box to prove the same. Even during cross examination, no specific suggestion to this effect was led, except for the fact that the signatures of Sh. Pankaj Digitally signed by Jain was questioned which witness PW-1 of the plaintiff has categorically MUKESH MUKESH stated that he has worked with Sh. Pankaj Jain for the period June 2022 KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:11:16
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 16 of 34 till March 2023 and Sh. Pankaj Jain used to sign the pleadings, filed fresh suit and vakalatnama in his presence. This being the position, the testimony of PW1 Mr. Jitender Mehndiratta remained unrebutted, unchallenged and undented to the extent that earlier Mr. Pankaj Jain who has filed the present suit was not competent and authorized to file the instant suit. Thus, taken on the yardstick of the preponderance of the probabilities, the defendant has failed to discharge the onus conferred on his shoulders. The additional issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff bank.
ISSUE NO. (iii) "Whether this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit ? OPD"
14. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was also held upon the defendant, who has taken a specific objection in its Written Statement that this court has no territorial jurisdiction as neither the loan was disbursed from the office of the plaintiff bank situated at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Branch nor the same was payable to the same and the defendant is also residing at Tagore Garden, New Delhi. It has also been averred that even the agent of the plaintiff bank has informed him the Branch address of the plaintiff bank from which, the loan is to be disbursed to be Sector-8, Rohini, which does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and, therefore, has prayed that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. On the other hand, the plaintiff has denied that this court has no territorial Digitally signed by MUKESH jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit on the ground that in the MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:11:23 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 17 of 34 Loan Application Form, the address of the branch of the plaintiff bank is clearly mentioned as V.T.N.D.(Videocon Tower New Delhi) and the loan was duly disbrused from the aforesaid branch only as can be seen from the loann disbursal memo Ex.PW1/5.
15. The defendant who has to discharge the aforesaid onus has not led any evidence nor file any documents in support of any of its contentions either regarding the address of bank branch at Rohini or the agent informing the same to be Rohini. Even, he has himself not entered the witness box to depose the source of his knowledge. Though, during cross examination of PW-1, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has tried to put forth the issue but the same when examined vis-a-vis the documentary evidence is not sufficient to prove the issue. The plaintiff in its evidence has relied upon the Credit Facility Application Form dated 13.11.2017 Ex.PW1/4 wherein the branch office address has been clearly mentioned as V.T.N.D an acronym for Videocon Tower New Delhi. PW1 Mr. Jitender Mehndiratta during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant has specifically deposed that the Loan Application was filed in Jhandewalan office of the plaintiff bank but no suggestion or the question in this regard was put by the Ld. Counsel for defendant that the same was not filed in Jhandewalan office of the plaintiff bank, therefore, the said deposition of PW1 could not be dented to the extent to discredit the same. The aforesaid question of law has also been raised before our own Hon'ble High Court which has duly considered the aforesaid contentions and rendered a succint judgment reported in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Ashok Sharma, RFA 572/2015 (DoD : 01.06.2018) wherein the Hon'ble KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:11:30
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 18 of 34
Court has held that loan transactions have two components, disbursement and repayment. Both form a vital part of cause of action. To say one part is substantial, while the other is not, would mean a failure to appreciate the true scope and import of the expression cause of action. The Hon'ble Court while examining the loan aspect on the aforesaid subject has further held that there may be instances where more than one branch of the bank may be involved in loan application, acceptance and processing but the same does not take away, the address of the principal office of the bank as irrelevant. Thus, when weighed on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, the defendant failed to discharge the onus, on this Count also. Resultantly, this issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff bank.
ISSUE NO.(i) & (ii) "Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of privity of contract between the parties ? OPD"
"Whether the signatures of the defendant were obtained on blank papers, as alleged ? OPD"
16. The burden to prove these issues was also on the defendant. Since both these issues are interconnected and the evidence led by the parties is also common, the court deems it appropriate to decide them together. Pertinent to mention here that the defendant has not led any separate evidence on these issues nor has even entered the witness box to depose its contention on oath. The defendant has only cross-examined PW1 Mr. Jitender Mehndiratta. During cross-
Digitally signedMUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Date:
examination PW1 has deposed that he has filed on record the Loan GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:11:37 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 19 of 34 Agreement No.LPDEL00036664197 but has no personal knowledge regarding the same being executed on the stamp paper or not. The witness further stated that Credit Facility Application Form Ex.PW1/4 is the Loan Agreement bearing no.LPDEL00036664197 and denied the suggestion that no such Loan Agreement was executed by the defendant. The witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge whether the defendant was present while applying the Loan Application Ex.PW1/3, clarifying that the Loan Application was filed in Jhandewalan Office of the plaintiff bank. The witness has further testified that the defendant has filed the Salary Slip, Aadhar Card and Pan Card to the plaintiff bank at the time of applying for loan. The witness has admitted that the documents Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 were not signed and filled by the defendant in his presence. However, he identified the signature of the defendant from his affidavit filed on record along wtih Written Statement and the documents in his Advocate's file. He has denied the suggestion that signatures on Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 are different. The witness pursuant to the further suggestion has admitted that he has not seen the defendant prior to filing the present suit. Denying the suggestion that the photograph on Ex.PW1/3 is not that of defendant. The witness has deposed that he cannot say whether the defendant is a Sikh with a pagdi while the photograph on Ex.PW1/3 is that of non-sikh person without pagdi, voluntarily clarifying that the defendant might not have wore the pagdi at the time of submitting photographs. The witness further deposed that the Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
copy of standard Terms and Conditions were supplied to the GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:11:44 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 20 of 34 defendant, but showed lack of knowledge whether any acknowledgment was taken for the same, admitting that the standard Terms and Conditions were not filed with the court record. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/4 is not a complete document. Although, he has admitted that there are no clauses from 10 to 30 in Ex.PW1/4, voluntarily adding that the reference in schedule 1 for clause 30 is that of standard terms as Ex.PW1/4 has only 9 clauses and not 30. The witness further denied the suggestion that the standard terms and conditions have not been filed by the plaintiff to conceal the fraud committed by the plaintiff bank with further denial that no loan agreement was ever executed between the plaintiff bank and the defendant and that is the reason that standard terms and conditions have not been filed by the plaintiff bank. The witness has admitted that Ex.PW1/5 was not signed by the defendant, voluntarily adding, that the same is only a document of the bank. He has admitted that the document Ex.PW1/5 was issued from Jhandewalan Branch of plaintiff bank.
17. The aforesaid evidence was vehemently referred to by both the Ld. Counsels. Ld counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the defendant himself approached the plaintiff bank for grant of personal loan, for which, he executed documents Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 which bears his signatures appended to this document at the time of its execution and relevant personal documents of the plaintiff including his account details mantained in Standard Chartered Bank, Sansad Marg Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Branch bearing account no. 52510268427 with IFSC Code KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:11:50
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 21 of 34
SCBL0036027 were collected. Ld. Counsel has even argued that not only the loan amount was disbursed in the aforesaid saving bank account of the defendant but also cheques were issued from the aforesaid account and RTGS mandate to the extent of Rs.19,989/- per month was also given. It has been argued that even the defendant has affixed his photograph on the document Ex.PW1/3. It has been argued that the loan amount of Rs.8,70,000/- was disbursed to the defendant vide Disbursal memo Ex.PW1/5 which was credited in his aforesaid account after necessary deductions, which clearly shows that the defendant after enjoying the credit facility has now become dishonest not only for non- payment of the loan amount but also taking false pleas.
18. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Defendant while referring to the documents has argued that the present suit should have been dismissed in limine as neither the defendant has approached the plaintiff bank for grant of the aforesaid loan nor executed the documents Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4, rather it was the agent of the plaintiff bank who approached the defendant for providing the loan to the defendant with interest @7.6 per annum and, therafter, the defendant has provided all the relevant documents to the plaintiff bank. However, when subsequently the agent of the plaintiff bank informed the defendant that the interest rate has been revised to @ 13-14% per annum, the defendant has asked for return of his documents considering the interest at higher side but the documents were returned. The agent then informed that he has a private financier Digitally signed who can give him a loan but only with the condition that the defendant by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:12:01 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 22 of 34 will return half of the loan amount to the agent immediately after sanction of the loan and the remaining amount shall be treated as loan.
19. The court has carefully considered the arguments advanced in the light of the evidence led on the aspect of lack of privity of contract and alleged signing of blank documents. At the outset, the defendant has not been clear either in his pleadings or in his so called evidence (led through cross examination of PW-1). On one hand, the defendant is taking a stand that he has not executed any document with the plaintiff bank and has signed only on blank papers and on the other hand, it is somewhere admitting, somewhere disputing his signatures on bank documents. Further no such blank paper being used ( or allegedly misused at a later stage) has been brought to the notice of the Court. The defendant has himself admitted in his pleadings that he has signed certain forms given by the agent of the plaintiff bank at the time of initial applying for the loan which he later decided not to avail on the ground of higher interest rate but has again taken a stand that the loan was managed by the agent of the plaintiff bank from a private financer on the condition that half of the loan amount is to be given to such financier in cash and that amount was also given to that financier. Though, nothing to this effect by way of any document has been proved on record by the defendant or even by any oral evidence led before the Court to the extent that even the defendant himself has decided not to enter into the witness box to depose on oath as to when the alleged half amount was withdrawn from the bank and handed over to the agent, or what has been stated in his defence. Digitally signed by MUKESH Admittedly, the defendant is not an illiterate man and is rather an official MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:12:08
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 23 of 34 of District Courts and is reasonably expected to know the consequence of his signing blank documents or accepting unsolicited amount in his accounts. Even, if it is presumed that blank documents were taken by the agent of plaintiff bank at initial stage for providing loan at cheaper rate which turn out to be false, nothing was preventing the defendant to atleast complaint or approach the police authorities or bank regulatory authorities for redressal of its complaint. Even, if it is presumed that he has not done so, then the bigger question which arise is that the loan amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- after deduction of necessary charges was received in his bank account which he very well availed and utilized rather than approaching either the bank from which the same was credited or even approaching the authorities for uncalled for credit of such a huge amount, that too when he being a Government Servant required to explain every single penny received in his account. One of the interesting fact is that the defendant has given an ECS Mandate to the plaintiff bank from where he has made monthly payment to the tune of Rs. 19,989/- per month adding to Rs. 1,39,923/- and when asked to respond, the defendant has not even categorically even denied the same in its written statement which also raises doubts regarding his intention to avail the loan, make part payments and then decide to raise technical pleas like privity of contract and signing blank documents. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a public financial bank and there are no allegations of either personal malice or past enmity with the defendant. It may be seen that the plaintiff bank is involed in banking and provides the loan facilities to the customers involving public money. The Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Court of India in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:12:17
+0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 24 of 34
(Supra) has held that where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not got to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There are sufficient powers in the courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible, a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is curable.
20. One of the aspect raised during evidence is the photograph affixed on the application form Ex.PW1/3 the defendant shows to be a non-sikh person without pagdi while the defendant is a sikh person having pagdi. During course of arguments, Ld counsel for plaintiff has attached the photocopy of the Aadhar Card of the defendant wherein the defendant is also shown to be a non-sikh without pagdi. This is corroborated by the PAN Card filed on record. It seems that the defendant at the time of applying for loan has provided his photograph without pagdi. Further, the defendant in his Written Statement has contended that he has not taken any loan from the plaintiff bank, rather has taken a loan from private financier. If the defendant who is stated to be bonafide person has taken a loan from a private financier, he ought to have examined the witness to prove his defence. In these circumstances, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. So far as the privity of contract is concerned, the plaintiff bank has granted the loan to the defendant which was credited in his account and if he has not applied for Digitally signed by MUKESH the same then why the said amount was not returned back to the bank, MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:12:24 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 25 of 34 meaning thereby the loan amount was accepted by the defendant which comes within the purview of contract by conduct also. Thus, when evidence is analysed on the yardstick of preponderance, the defendant has failed to prove the aforesaid issues. The issue no. (i) & (ii) are accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff bank.
ISSUE No. (iv): "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? OPP."
21. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was held upon the plaintiff. To prove the aforesaid issue, the plaintiff bank has solely examined PW1 Mr. Jitender Mehndiratta who has testified that defendant availed the Personal Loan Facility from the Plaintiff-bank for which he approached and requested the plaintiff-bank in the month of November, 2017 for grant of personal loan in his favour, for a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- vide Preliminary Credit Facility Application Ex.PW1/3 followed by Credit Facility Application Form Ex.PW1/4. The plaintiff-Bank after due verification, sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.8,70,000/- and disbursed an amount of Rs.8,37,663 to the defendant which was credited in his account bearing no.52510268427 maintained with Standard Charted Bank on 14.11.2017 after deducting necessary charges towards processing fee and other aspects vide Disbursal Memo proved on record as Ex.PW1/5. The said loan was to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.19,989/- each. Defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Loan Agreement and failed to pay the outstanding Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR amount upon which the plaintiff-Bank issued a Loan Recall Notice KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:12:31 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 26 of 34 dated 29.08.2020 tendered as Ex.PW1/6 upon the defendant calling him to repay the outstanding amount. Despite notice, defendant neither replied the notice nor paid the outstanding dues. The witness has tendered the postal receipt as Mark 'X'. The witness has further deposed that as per Prepayment/Foreclosure Letter and Statement of Account dated 11.01.2021 Ex.PW1/7(colly) maintained by the plaintiff-Bank, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,68,191.49ps. However, the plaintiff bank has not claimed the prepayment charges of Rs.46,889.49ps. As the defendant failed to make the payment despite repeated calls and legal notice, present Suit for Recovery of total outstanding amount of Rs.12,21,302/-, due as on 11.01.2021, plus accrued interest along with cost of the suit, has been filed on behalf of plaintiff. Foreclosure Letter and Statement of account has been relied upon as Ex.PW1/7(colly). The requisite Certificate U/s.65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is tendered as Ex.PW1/8. The requisite Certificate Under Section 2A of Banker's Book Act, 1891 is tendered as Ex.PW1/9.
22. At the outset, the court shall take up the issue of limitation which is a legal issue, which the court is required to determine for the purpose of deciding the entitlement of plaintiff to the relief claimed. As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any suit, application or appeal has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under the schedule annexed to the Limitation Act and subject to provisions contained in Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR Section 4 to 24. This has to be done irrespective of the fact whether KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:12:38 limitation has been set up as a defence or not. It is a settled proposition of +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 27 of 34 law that law of limitation is a law of repose, peace and justice which bars the remedy after the lapse of particular period by way of public policy and expediency. Reliance is placed on AIR 1991 Kerala 83 Craft Centre vs. Koncherry Coir Factories. It may be seen that the present suit is for recovery of amount outstanding against the defendant in respect of personal loan sanctioned by the plaintiff bank to the defendant pursuant to Credit Facility Application Form dated 13.11.2017. The defendant initially paid an amount of Rs.1,39,923/- and thereafter started defaulting. The defendant made payment of Rs.19,989/- through cheque on 10.05.2018 lastly and the next EMI was due on 10.06.2018 which give a cause of action to the plaintiff bank. If the said date of payment is considered for reckoning of limitation, present suit should have been filed on or before 10.06.2021. The present has been filed by the plaintiff bank on 29.01.2021 is well within the period of limitation as per law.
23. The present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff based on outstanding amount shown in the Prepayment/Foreclosure Letter and Statement of Account Ex.PW1/7(colly) showing an outstanding balance of Rs.12,68,191.49ps, duly supported with Certificate U/s.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1860 Ex.PW1/8 and the Certificate under section 2A of Banker's Book of Evidence Act,1891 Ex.PW1/9. However, the plaintiff bank has excluded the prepayment charges of Rs.46,889.49ps from the claimed amount and is not claiming the same. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.12,21,302/- which as per the Prepayment/Foreclosure Letter and Digitally Statement of Account Ex.PW1/7(colly) is due and pending against the signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:12:44
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 28 of 34
defendant. The loan recall notice dated 29.08.2020 has been relied upon as Ex.PW1/6 and postal receipt has been relied upon as Mark-X. It is the deposition of the plaintiff witness that despite the aforesaid, defendant has failed to pay the outstanding amount leading to filing of the present suit.
24. The onus to prove the averments and claim of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden laid upon it successfully, if the plaintiff is able to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. It is the law of land as re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adiveppa Vs. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586. by upholding that :
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the onus to prove its case and that the burden to prove the case as per law entirely lies upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
25. Since the present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff bank, on the basis of Personal Loan Facility granted by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, in regular course of banking business. In such cases, documentary evidence is of paramount importance as there is continuity Digitally of maintenance of account maintained in the ordinary course of its signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:12:52 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 29 of 34 business. Hence, it is a matter of settled practice for public financial institutions to maintain regular and proper accounts against each and every customer account. Accordingly, the court has meticulously scrutinized the evidence, document and statement of account tendered through the sole testimony of PW1. It may be seen that upon appreciation of documentary evidence, plaintiff placed reliance on Statement of Account and prepayment letter vide Ex.PW1/7(colly). As per the said Foreclosure and Statement of Account proved on record as Ex.PW1/7(colly), the total outstanding balance of Rs.12,68,191.49ps including principal outstanding balance of Rs.7,94,737/-, interest component on pending installment as Rs.2,12,557/- on outstanding principal besides other charges was due against the defendant as on 11.01.2021. The Foreclosure/Prepayment Letter and Statement of Account has been duly accompanied by Certificate U/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1860 Ex.PW1/8 and Certificate under section 2A of Banker's Book of Evidence Act,1891 Ex.PW1/9.
26. The only defence raised by the defendant is absence of privity of contract and the documents being signed by the defendant on blank papers, these aspects have already been discussed by the court while deciding issue No.(i) and (ii). The defendant on its part has neither entered the witness box nor brought any other evidence to prove its contention except by subjecting the plaintiff's witness to cross-examine. The primary objections which were taken by the defendant is that he has Digitally signed by provided the relevant documents to the agent of the plaintiff bank for MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date: grant of loan to him at a minimal rate of interest @ 7.2% per anuum, 2025.04.05 17:13:00 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 30 of 34 however, since the same was raised by the plaintiff bank upto 13-14 % per annum, for which, the defendant has shown his disinclination on account of the interest being huge. The limited questions have been put by the Ld. Counsel for defendant where the witness has deposed that the rate of interest in respect of loan in question was 13.5% per annum. However, the witness has stated that he cannot say exactly whether the same is a simple interest or compounder interest but the same is a cumulative interest at reducing rate(IRR). The witness has also deposed that the penal interest has been claimed @24% per annum which has been mentioned in Ex.PW1/4. The witness has denied the suggestion that all the documents are forged and fabricated and were never signed by the defendant. He further denied the suggestion that neither the defendant has taken a loan from the plaintiff bank nor the plaintiff bank is entitled to any recovery against the defendant. In rebuttal, the defendant has not led any evidence nor has filed any document to the contrary which may prove that the defendant is not entilted to any amount against the defendant or the plaintiff bank has charged the excess interest.
27. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the plaintiff has justifiably raised the outstanding balance against the defendant. The plaintiff bank has relied upon the Statement of Account dated 11.01.2021 Ex.PW1/7(colly), as per which, the total outstanding balance of Rs.12,68,191.49ps has been shown against the defendant. However, the plaintiff bank is not claiming prepayment charges of Rs.46,889.49ps, Digitally therefore, has claimed only Rs.12,21,302/-. Further, the plaintiff bank signed by shall not be entitled to Rs.2,12,557/- which the plaintiff bank has charged MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.05 17:13:07 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 31 of 34 as interest on pending installments and Rs.145/- charged towards the interest for the month of January, 2021, which comes to Rs.2,12,702/-, as the loan was foreclosed on 29.08.2020. Thus, the amount of Rs.2,12,702/- is required to be deducted from the total amount claimed. As such, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a recovery of Rs.10,08,600/- against the defendant. Accoridngly, weighting the evidence on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, while the plaintiff bank has been able to prove its entitlement except the fact that the amount so discussed above is required to be deducted. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5. "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest from the defendant, if so at what rate and for what period ? OPP"
28. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was held upon the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank has claimed interest @24% per annum pendente lite and future from the date of filing of the suit till realization on the claimed/suit amount but the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence in this regard nor filed any cogent evidence or the document that the plaintiff bank is entitled for interest @ 24% pendente lite and future on the suit amount. In the absence of any cogent evidence, this court deem it appropriate to consider the law in respect of grant of interest on the suit amount. The Hon'ble Superior Courts have repeatedly mandated that Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR courts must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:13:24 +0530 fall in the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. Reliance is placed on Pt. Munshi Ram @ Associates (P) Lt. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 32 of 34 Online Delhi 2444, Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) . Under the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the aforesaid settled law, court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met, if an interest @6% per annum on the decreetal amount of Rs.10,08,600/- pendentelite and future from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization is granted to the plaintiff bank.
CONCLUSION:-
ISSUE No.6: Relief.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions and finding of the court on the aforesaid issues, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been able to successfully prove its entitlement for recovery of amount claimed, against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly decreed against the defendant for a sum of Rs.10,08,600/-. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to a simple interest @ 6% per annum on such amount pendentelite and future from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05
17:13:44
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 33 of 34
30. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs of the suit throughout.
31. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
32. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Pronounced in Open Court Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA today on this 29th March, 2025. KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.05 17:13:51 +0530 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-07, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CERTIFICATE Certified that the judgment contains 34 pages and each page has been digitally signed by me. The judgment was pronounced on 29.03.2025 in open court and is being checked and uploaded on 05.04.2025. MUKESH Digitally by MUKESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2025.04.05 GUPTA 17:13:57 +0530 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) DJ (COMMERCIAL COURT)-07 CENTRAL/DELHI(rk) CS (Comm.) No.379/2021 ICICI BANK LTD. . Vs. Amandeep Singh Page no. 34 of 34