Delhi District Court
Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Syed Masood Athar on 1 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-07), DIGITAL
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 212/2024
Jammu & Kashmir Bank
having its head office at
M.A. Road, Srinagar, Kashmir and
Branch amongst others at:
A-29, Batla House, Opp. MCD School,
Zakir Nagar, New Delhi-25.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Syed Masood Athar
S/o Mr. Syed Athar Ali,
R/o 143/12, First Floor, Zakir Nagar,
Gali No. 12, New Delhi.
....... Defendant
Date of Institution: 22.03.2024
Arguments concluded on : 21.03.2025
Date of Judgment: 01.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,22,490.81/- (Rupees Four Lacs Twenty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety and Eighty-one paisa only) with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The recovery is instituted by Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited, incorporated under J&K Companies Act 1977 (SAMVAT). The corporate office of the bank is situated at Srinagar, J&K and branch office at A-29, Batla House, Zakir Digitally signed by Nagar, Delhi-25 (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff). The NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:51:29 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 1 of 18 suit is instituted through Sh. Naresh Kumar, Authorized Representative, claimed to have been authorized vide authorization dated 28.07.2021.
3. Defendant Sh. Syed Masood Athar, borrower, approached the plaintiff bank for availing credit card facility and was accorded credit card No. 5555000008620971 against application dated 05.08.2017 with credit limit of Rs. One lac.
4. Defendant after availing the credit facility started to make defaults and despite request of plaintiff to regularize his account, failed, leading to account being declared NPA.
5. Plaintiff details that defendant made certain payments as below:
1. Rs. 5,000/- 09.06.2020
2. Rs. 93,448/- 11.07.2020
3. Rs. 5,000/- 08.08.2020
4. Rs. 5,000/- 07.09.2020
5. Rs. 3500/- 10.10.2020
6. Rs. 5,000/- 16.10.2020
7. Rs. 5,000/- 19.11.2020
8. Rs. 14,120/- 12.01.2021
6. The claim is now made asserting that the last payment against the credit loan account is received on 12.01.2021, whereafter no payment is released. A notice dated 28.08.2023 was issued to the defendant to repay the outstanding, which is now attracting the interest @ 3% per month compounded monthly w.e.f 01.01.2024. Plaintiff claims cause of action and states that efforts for pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act resulted in Non-starter report being Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:51:35 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 2 of 18 returned. The suit is now filed for an amount of Rs. 4,22,490/- with pendente lite and future interest.
Written Statement
7. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he has objected to the claim asserting that the suit is liable to fail on the grounds of:
(i) having been filed by an incompetent person;
(ii) for failure to disclose any cause of action; and
(iii) for being hit by limitation.
8. While replying on merits, all the submissions made in the plaint are denied with the allegation that plaintiff is filing the claim only with intention to harass the defendant and extort the amounts. Defendant denied any agreement between the parties claiming that he never agreed to any terms and conditions as claimed. Rest of the submissions were denied and dismissal of the suit is prayed.
Replication
9. Plaintiff did not file the replication.
Note of the proceedings
10. The suit is instituted on 22.03.2024. Clarifications were asked initially regarding the maintainability, after which, the amended plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC alongwith which fresh amended plaint, application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, another application under Section 151 CPC for substitution of Digitally AR was moved. Vide order of 19.04.2024, the applications were signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:51:42 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 3 of 18 allowed. Another application under Section 151 CPC was received on 31.05.2024, which was dealt with vide order dated 15.07.2024. Process was issued, whereupon defendant caused appearance on 30.07.2024 in person. Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali, counsel for defendant, caused appearance with defendant on 16.08.2024, however, for failure to file written statement and/ or an application for extension, the opportunity initially was closed, at which stage, plaintiff filed the examination affidavit. However, defendant then moved the written statement alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay and recall of order. As the written statement was filed within 120 days, in view of the cause expressed, it was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- and the order closing the opportunity was recalled. As the counsel for plaintiff on 10.09.2024 submitted his non-inclination to file any replication, issues were framed. Matter then was posted for evidence. PW-1 Sh. Sumit Mahajan tendered his evidence, at which stage, application for substitution of AR was disposed of.
Parties then engaged in the settlement discussion and it was informed that plaintiff has received, in lumpsum, a sanction to settle the matter against, lumpsum receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Defendant paid part payment of Rs. 25,000/-, however, then reflected disagreement to the terms. PW-1 was then cross- examined on 13.01.2025 and matter was kept for defendant's evidence. At which stage of proceedings on 25.01.2025, Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali submitted that defendant is not inclined to lead any evidence. DE was closed. Matter was kept for final arguments. Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:51:47 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 4 of 18 Issues
11. Vide order dated 10.09.2024 issues below were framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action?
OPP (2) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs. 4,22,490.81/- as prayed for? OPP (4) Whether any interest is payable, if so, at what rate? OPP (5) Any other relief.
Plaintiff' evidence
12. PW-1 Sh. Sumit Mahajan has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the documents below:
(1) Copy of authorization/ power of attorney dated 28.07.2021, Ex. PW-1/1.
(2) Copy of Non-Starter Report dated 20.03.2024, Ex. PW-1/2. (3) Original application form dated 05.08.2017, Ex. PW-1/3. (4) Original JKB Special OTS - 2023 alongwith postal receipt dated 23.08.2023, Ex. PW-1/4.
(5) The certified copy of statement of account No. 5555000008620971, Ex. PW-1/5.
(6) Affidavit under Section 2A(b) Banker's Book Evidence Act, Ex. PW-1/6.
(7) Affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.
PW-1/7.
(8) Credit card policy, Ex. PW-1/8.
Digitally signed by NIRJA (9) Credit card statement and terms and conditions, Ex. PW-1/9. NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:51:53 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 5 of 18 (10) Copy of authorization/ power of attorney dated 20.02.2023, Ex. PW-1/10.
13. I shall deal with the gist of the cross-examination while deciding the issues for the sake of brevity of the judgment. PE was then closed vide separate statement.
Defendant's evidence
14. Despite opportunity, defendant did not lead any evidence which was closed vide order dated 25.01.2025.
Final Arguments Arguments on behalf of defendant
15. Both Ld. Counsels made their respective final arguments and filed the written submissions with case law. I have heard the arguments and have carefully perused the record. Before adverting further, a brief note of the submission received on record is observed.
16. Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali, in his written submission, challenged the proceedings and claimed that AR has failed to show his capacity to pursue the proceedings in view of law laid in Manisha Mahendra Gala and ors. Vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors., (2024) 6 SCC 130 . He asserted that power of attorney in favour of Sh. Sumit Mahajan is issued by board of directors, however, there is no document filed to prove that how and by virtue of what, board of directors draw their power to appoint Sh. Sumit Mahajan as plaintiff's AR. He claims that AR himself admitted "no board resolution has been filed in support Digitally of GPA. It is also correct that no Articles of Association of signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:51:59 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 6 of 18 plaintiff bank is filed alongwith the plaint". He further admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the present case. He then invoked the law settled in M/s Nibro Limited Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 Delhi 25 , wherein the Hon'ble High Court took a grim view against the AR for not filing Memorandum and Articles of Association or resolution passed by the company ratifying the action of appointment.
17. Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali reasserted that Sh. Sumit Mahajan has no personal knowledge of the case nor has he drawn the print out of documents filed alongwith the plaint as admitted through cross-examination on 13.01.2025. In which circumstance, the certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act which is not filed by Sh. Sumit Mahajan should not be treated as evidence. He also relied on the claim that in view of Nibro Limited (supra), the verification of the suit is to be treated bad under Order 6 Rule 14 CPC for being inconsistent in law under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC.
18. Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali objected to the act of plaintiff in not examining Sh. Atif Ashfaq, the writer of certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act.
19. The defendant then challenged the institution of the claim. It is asserted by Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali that plaint is barred by limitation as the same is beyond 3 years. It is claimed that plaintiff, as per its own plea, received the last payment on 12.01.2021, from which date the limitation expired on 11.01.2024 and since the plaint is not filed during the aforementioned period, it shall be rejected.
20. It is asserted that suit without any demand notice is bad as NIRJA it is admitted by PW-1 that "there is no demand letter in the file. I BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 7 of 18 Date: 2025.04.01 16:52:05 +0530 cannot say that any demand notice was issued to defendant as it is not available in the file ." It is asserted that plaintiff has failed to discharge its onus and hence, had discredited the statements made in the plaint. He has relied on the case law below:
(1) B and T AG Vs. Ministry of Defence, (2024) 5 SCC 358; (2) Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. Union Bank of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7243;
(3) Om Prakash Vs. CBI, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10249; (4) M/s Nibro Limited Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 Delhi 25; and (5) State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt.
Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 524.
Discussion & Findings
21. The issue-wise analysis of the evidence, arguments and result of discussion is as under:
Issue No. 2:
22. I propose to start the discussions on the findings with this issue as the issue pertaining to limitation has been framed at the instance of parties, though, the burden of proving this issue has been on plaintiff.
23. Ld. Counsel Sh. Shadman Ali, Advocate for defendant, has raised the issue of limitation in the written statement and then has categorically argued the same during his written submissions as well as submissions made orally in Court. He claimed that para 5 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has detailed in tabulated form, the details of payments, the last date of payment stated is Digitally signed by 12.01.2021. He claimed that consequent thereto, suit should have NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:52:11 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 8 of 18 been filed within the three years from the said date and as the suit is instituted on 22.03.2024, it is clearly time barred. He intended to draw support from case law B and T AG Vs. Ministry of Defence (supra), wherein the law through Article 137 Limitation Act is discussed and in Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. Union Bank of India (supra) to buttress his arguments. However, while making the aforementioned pleas, Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali forgot to contextualized the facts at hand. In the present claim, undoubtedly, the plaintiff has mentioned the date of last payment as 12.01.2021. However, the account of the defendant has not been declared NPA on the said date. Plaintiff declared the defendant's account as Non-Performing Asset on 31.05.2021, whereafter the cause of action accrued in favour of plaintiff for filing the present claim. Calculating the period from the date of 31.05.2021 to that of filing of the suit on 22.03.2024, the suit is within time. Moreover, the plaintiff before filing the suit, engaged the time with South Delhi Legal Service Authority for pre-litigation mediation as is stated in para 12 of the plaint. The period of such engagement is also to be exempted from the calculation of the period of limitation in plaintiff's favour as is detailed in Section 12-A Commercial Courts Act, Chapter 3A:
"CHAPTER IIIA PRE-INSTITUTION MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT ............................................................ .............................................................. Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties: Provided further that, the period during which the Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
parties remained occupied with the pre-institution 2025.04.01 16:52:17 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 9 of 18 mediation, such period shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).
............................................................"
24. It is, though, not requisited however, still noted for the purpose of reminder to defendant that consequent to the date mentioned of default in 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation in Suo Motu W. P. (C) No. 3 of 2020 and entire period of Covid has been declared exempt for the purpose of filing of the claims by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Aptect Ltd., (2024) 5 SCC 313.
25. Having regard to above, the plea raised by the defendant regarding the suit being barred by limitation is not substantiated. The issue rests in favour of the plaintiff.
Issues No. 1, 3, 4 and 5:
26. I propose to detail the discussion qua the issues of (i) plaintiff having a cause of action, (ii) entitlement to recover the principal amount, (iii) entitlement of any interest etc., as below.
27. The suit of plaintiff on facts is emanating from application form dated 05.08.2017, which is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3. Though, initially the plaintiff mentioned the application as 'OSR', he has also filed the original application form. The application form, on perusal, is showing the photographs of defendant and is reflecting that the application form is signed by the defendant. The contents of the application form have neither been put to dispute nor denial. The plaintiff then exhibited on NIRJA BHATIA record the certified copy of statement of account No. Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2025.04.01 16:52:22 +0530 5555000008620971 as Ex. PW-1/5. The contents of the J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 10 of 18 statement, though, are not disputed, the defendant argued that the document is not to be read for the purposes that in support of the exhibit, the certificate under Section 65-B is signed by one Sh. Atif Ashfaq, who is not brought by the plaintiff as witness to prove the certificate. However, the defendant here again has omitted to look into the fact that the statement of account has been furthered instantly alongwith the plaint itself. It is then supported by a declaration and statement as requisited under the provision of Order 11 Rule 6 (3) CPC wherein its authenticity has been detailed. The defendant did not put any question in cross- examination to PW-1 Sh. Sumit Mahajan, Sr. Manager, who tendered and exhibited this statement. Moreover, the statement is supported with another certificate under Section 2-A (b) Banker's Books of Evidence Act, which certificate is specifically exhibited as Ex. PW-1/6. The provision of erstwhile Section 65-B, and now re-drawn Section 63 of BSA are parallel provisions to Section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act. The intent of both provisions is same and for the reason that defendant did not raise any doubt to Ex. PW-1/6, nor drew in any clouds to the declaration under Order 11 Rule 6(3), the assertion that Sh. Atif Ashfaq did not appear to support the affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is of no consequence. In accordance, the statement of account is a document of evidentiary value as is determined by Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, which states as under:
"34. Entries in books of account when relevant.-- 1[Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in NIRJA BHATIA the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2025.04.01 16:52:28 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 11 of 18 inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
28. The perusal of the statement of account then reveals that entries in the statement of account No. 5555000008620971 are managed in furtherance of the contract signed through the application by the defendant. The perusal of the statement of the account, thus show a contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant. It also suggest clearly that defendant had been availing the advantage against the account and had been discharging the liability. It also reflect clearly that the defendant is will aware of the charges attracted to the payments in case they are delayed. The perusal of the statement clearly shows that defendant was burdened with late payment fees, over-drawn charges and had been informed through the statement of account. The deposit of amounts against the late payment fees, over-drawn fees, debit interest, establishes that not only the defendant was aware of such charges, but has confirmed to the said liability and in furtherance, has consented and has paid the said.
29. Consequent to acting upon the contract and after having derived the advantage, the defendant now cannot be permitted to wriggle out of its terms feigning ignorance. The avoidance and conduct of defendant is apparent through the written statement wherein the defendant has made bald denials with intention to not confirm to even single statement of fact presented by the plaintiff.
NIRJA 30. While Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali argued the absence of any BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2025.04.01 contract between the parties and denied defendant having entered 16:52:33 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 12 of 18 in any, he did not bring on record any material to show the premise for defendant to have received the credit card facility and for having drawn the advantage for such long time of about four years since defendant moved the application in 2017 and continuously used the credit card thereafter till the last payment is recorded on 12.01.2021. The aforementioned evasive conduct speaks volume about the demenour carried by defendant on record. Defendant cannot be advantaged, in such circumstances. In above background, the plaintiff has relied upon the notice of demand sent under postal slips dated 28.03.2023 as Ex. PW-1/4. There is no dispute to the said notice. The Counsel, however, claimed the opposite during his final arguments and intended to rely on statement of PW-1, wherein he claimed that he could not find the notice from the record. The statement that the witness could not find a demand letter in the file would not go on to deny the existence of one. More so, when the said demand notice has been put under exhibit on record. It is, at this stage, required to be taken note that Court files are usually voluminous set of documents and bound in different parts. While a witness comes to the Court and stands in a witness box, for the reason of standing in a witness box is sufficient to cause anxiety and in circumstance, it is not expected that he would be able to go through each and every page of the file, most of the time comprising of repetitive documents and set of pages to immediately, at a spur of moment, indicate the document. In circumstances of above, part of the statement where the witness claims that he could not find the demand letter in file, shall not NIRJA BHATIA construe negatively against the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2025.04.01 16:52:39 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 13 of 1831. Ld. Sh. Shadman Ali then heavily tried to bank upon the technicalities claiming that suit is improper in filing and PW-1 was incompetent to testify. He relied upon on case law in M/s Nibro Limited (supra) and Manisha Mahendra Gala (supra) to support his submissions. However, while making the aforementioned submissions, again the context was ignored. In the present claim, while the suit stands instituted through one Sh. Naresh Kumar, who instituted his power of attorney from the bank in support, at the stage of evidence, Sh. Sumit Mahajan moved the application of substitution, with which the power of attorney has been filed. There is no challenge to the fact that power of attorney not being on record or that the power of attorney being invalid. The contention is being raised that the plaintiff did not file the Memorandum and Articles of Association of its constitution and that resolution in support of its directors to impart the power is not placed. While relying on the law laid in M/s Nibro (supra), the portion of the case law was reproduced in written argument, Ld. Counsel omitted to read the entire para. The context of M/s Nibro (supra) arose from the failure of the director to show authorization in his favour as the power to issue such authorization vested with the board. As is observed below:
"The power to institute the suit vests with the board and an individual director can institute the suit only if he is specifically empowered."
32. Whereas, in circumstances presented, no such plea is raised. Witness has categorically denied that he is not competent. The power of attorney suggests clearly that the GPA in favour of Digitally Sh. Sumit Mahajan is extended by the board of directors of J&K signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:52:52 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 14 of 18 Bank Limited and extends the power for the purposes of proceedings. The power of attorney is duly attested in presence of Secretary of the Board Mr. Mohd. Shakil Mir. In which case, the objection raised does not find much support.
33. The other objections coming from the provisions of Order 3 Rule 2 CPC is raised in background of law laid in Manisha Mahendra Gala (supra). Ld. Counsel states that witness being power of attorney is incompetent to make the statement in favour of the plaintiff. However, again the submission is misconstrued. At the outset, the witness stated that he is in service of the plaintiff bank since the year 2008 and is well versed with the facts of the case. There is no cross-examination beyond the above. It is trite in circumstances to say that the witness cannot be ignorant of the facts and circumstances as being a Sr. Manager, his deposition is based on the facts recorded in the branch. Having regard to above, the submissions are meritless.
34. In circumstance above, the plaintiff has reflected the cause of action and as there is no dispute or denial that defendant executed an agreement with the plaintiff, validity of which like contracts has been upheld time and again by Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in Hong Kong and Shahghai Banking Corp. Ltd. Vs. Awaz and ors., Civil Appeal No. 5273 of 2008, DOD 20.12.2024, by observing below:
"62. It is a well-settled principle that the terms of a contract executed between two parties, are not open to judicial scrutiny unless the same is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. The courts cannot strike down the terms of a BHATIA contract, because it feels that some other terms NIRJA would have been fair, wiser or logical.Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2025.04.01 16:52:57 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 15 of 18
63. The credit card holders in the present case are well- informed and educated & had agreed to be bound by the express stipulation by the terms issued by the respective banks. The banks in the most important terms and conditions, as provided by the Banks have provided all necessary information with regard to fees, and charges applicable to credit cards, credit and cash withdrawal limits. We are of the considered opinion that once the terms of the credit card operations were known to the complainants and disclosed by the banking institutions before the issuance of the credit cards, the National Commission could not have scrutinized the terms or conditions, including the rate of interest. More- so, the Respondent has not approached the statutory authority, the Reserve Bank of India, for any objection against the rate of interest, or the high Benchmark Prime Lending Rate.
64. The National Commission, whilst making observations, has made stipulations to the terms of contract agreed between the parties, so much so it has supplanted itself as the custodian of the terms and conditions between the parties. We are of the considered opinion to re-agitate the terms and conditions of credit card facilities provided by the banks, and re-write the terms thereof, including the rates of interest charged by the banks, is exorbitant, however reasonable, is an attempt by the National Commission to constitute a new contract, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled cannon of law, that a contract, being a creature of an agreement between two or more parties, is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves19."
Digitally signed by NIRJA
65. Therefore, when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, that NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01 16:53:02 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 16 of 18 normally parties are bound by such contract; it is for the parties to establish an exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms, in the contract, or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents, need to be established20. Hence, the National Commission had no jurisdiction to re-write the said terms of the contract entered Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Vs Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. Bharathi Knittting Company Vs Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfrieght Ltd.[1996] 4 SCC 704 between the banks and the credit cardholders, which the parties have mutually agreed to be bound by."
35. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs.
4,22,490/-.
Interest:
36. While the plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest, plaint is not drawn in support of provisions of Commercial Courts Act, specifying rate of interest and suggesting the amount payable against the said head. In circumstances above, as the plaintiff has not clarified the rate of interest prevailing at the time of filing of the suit to such like cardholders and has narrated 3% interest on the outstanding compounded monthly, the said rate of interest is accorded in favour of the plaintiff w.e.f filing of the suit i.e. 01.03.2024 till realization alongwith costs towards Court fee @ Rs. 4500 + Rs.
2000 (total Rs. 6,500/-) and litigation charges @ Rs. 10,000/- in NIRJA BHATIA terms of Section 34 CPC. The amount of lawyer's fee is Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2025.04.01 16:53:07 +0530 J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 17 of 18 restricted to above amount for want of certificate of fee having been filed.
37. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2025.04.01
16:53:14
+0530
Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia)
today on 1st April, 2025 District Judge
(Comm. Court) (Digital-07)
South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi
J&K Bank Vs. Syed Masood Athar Page 18 of 18