Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda) vs M/S Mahagauri Textiles And Anr on 10 September, 2024

             IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
              DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
             NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.

CS (COMM.) 136/2019
CNR No.DLNT010050882019

DENA BANK (Now Bank of Baroda)
Through its Authorised Representative
Plot No.3, Krishna Cold Storage,
New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur,
New Delhi - 110033.                                      .............. Plaintiff
                                  Vs.

(1)         M/s. Mahagauri Textiles
            Through its Proprietor
            Plot No.51, 1st Floor,
            Rajender Nagar Industrial Area, Sahibabad,
            Ghaziabad, U.P.

(2)         Mr. Rajeshwari Aggarwal
            Proprietor of M/s. Mahagauri Textiles
            P-14, Street No.4, Bihari Colony,
            Shahdara, Delhi - 110032.
                                                      .............. Defendants

Date of Institution               :          31.05.2019
Date of final arguments           :          10.09.2024
Date of decision                  :          10.09.2024
Decision                          :          Decreed

J U D G M E N T:

-

1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs.8,07,171.30 alongwith pendente-lite & future interest.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that in or about April, 2017, the CS (COMM.) 136/2019 Page No.1 of 5 DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) VS. M/S. MAHAGAURI TEXTILES & ANR. defendants approached it for sanction of 'Term Loan Facility' under Tarun Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana. Considering the request of defendants and upon execution of necessary documents i.e. Demand Promissory Note, Agreement of Hypothecation, Letter of Continuity, general undertaking etc. all dated 03.02.2017, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a 'Term Loan' of Rs.9,99,000/- @ Interest MCLR + 1.50% + 0.5% = 10.60% p.a. (at the time of sanction MCLR was 8.60% per annum) with monthly rests vide sanction letter dated 15.04.2017. The said loan amount was disbursed in loan account no.165754031030. It was agreed that ROI will be subject to change in Bank's Base Rate/Bank Policies.

It is stated that the defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline and defaulted in timely payment of loan installments. Accordingly, the loan account of the defendant was declared as NPA on 13.10.2018 as per the RBI guidelines. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice dated 31.01.2019 calling the defendants to pay the outstanding amount. It is stated that no response was received from the defendants to the said legal notice.

According to the plaintiff bank, a sum of Rs.8,07,171.30 remained due and outstanding against the defendants in respect of the term loan as on 04.12.2018. The plaintiff bank also initiated the Pre-institution mediation and settlement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before North West District Legal Services Authority on 05.03.2019 but of no avail and hence, certificate of Non -Starter Report dated 21.05.2019 was issued. Hence, the present suit for recovery is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants.

3. The Defendants failed to appear despite service of the CS (COMM.) 136/2019 Page No.2 of 5 DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) VS. M/S. MAHAGAURI TEXTILES & ANR. summons through publication in Daily Newspapers i.e. 'Veer Arjun' dated 29.05.2023 and 'Statesman' dated 22.05.2023 nor filed written statement within the stipulated time as per Commercial Courts Act, 2015, hence, the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed vide order dated 20.01.2024. Following notional issues was framed for adjudication of the case:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.8,07,171.30 from the defendants as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest from the defendants? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP

(iii) Relief.

4. The Plaintiff examined its AR Mr. Sushant Kumar Ashwani as PW-1 to prove the case. The witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the Defendants. No evidence was led by the Defendants as well.

5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and have perused the plaint, documents filed alongwith the same and the evidence led by the Plaintiff. My issue-wise findings is as under:

Issue no.(i) & (ii)

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.8,07,171.30 from the defendants as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest from the defendants? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP The onus to prove the above issues was on the plaintiff. The brief and relevant facts for filing the present suit has been mentioned at the outset. The plaintiff examined its AR Sh. Sushant Kumar Ashwani as PW1 to prove the case. He deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint. He has also proved the following CS (COMM.) 136/2019 Page No.3 of 5 DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) VS. M/S. MAHAGAURI TEXTILES & ANR. documents:-

(i)        Ex.PW1/1 (OSR): Power of Attorney.
(ii)       Ex.PW1/2 (OSR): Copy of sanction letter.
(iii)      Ex.PW1/3 (OSR): Copy of Demand Promissory Note.
(iv)       Ex.PW1/4 (OSR): Copy of Agreement of Hypothecation.
(v)        Ex.PW1/5 (OSR): Copy of letter of continuity.
(vi)       Ex.PW1/6 (OSR): Copy of General Undertaking.
(vii)      Ex.PW1/7 (OSR): Copy of letter of General lien & Set off for
borrowing Arrangements from Borrowers.
(viii)     Ex.PW1/8 (Colly): Statement of Account.
(ix)       Ex.PW1/9: Office copy of Demand Notice.
(x)        Ex.PW1/10: Postal Receipts of legal notice.

6. PW1 was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the Defendants. Therefore, his testimony as well as documents proved by him have remained uncontroverted on behalf of the Defendants. Considering the deposition of witness PW-1 as well as documents proved by him, it is manifest that the Plaintiff Bank has proved its case against the Defendants in entirety. Both these issues are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff bank.

Relief:

In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.8,07,171.30 in favour of the Plaintiff bank and against the Defendants alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum.

7. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit also.

DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) VS. M/S. MAHAGAURI TEXTILES & ANR.

8. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

9. Judgment be also uploaded on the Server.

10. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.

                                        GORAKH      GORAKH NATH
                                        NATH        PANDEY
                                                    Date: 2024.09.11
                                        PANDEY      15:17:21 +0530



Announced in the open court       (GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
     th

on 10 September, 2024. District Judge (Commercial Court) North:Rohini:Delhi/10.09.2024 CS (COMM.) 136/2019 Page No.5 of 5 DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) VS. M/S. MAHAGAURI TEXTILES & ANR.