Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Mr. Adarsh Jha on 17 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 42/18
State Bank of India,
Through RACPC Branch,
F40, Third Floor, New Delhi,
South ExtensionI, New Delhi.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1.Mr. Adarsh Jha S/o Mr. Phulendra Jha, R/o Shiv Mandir, Village Sultanpur, New Dehli.
2. Mr. Phulendra Jha, S/o Mr. Bihari Baba, Sales Consultant, C/o Agra Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. 3, IDC, Opp: Sector14,
Recent Plaza, Sikanderpur,
Gurgaon122001
...... Defendant
Suit presented on : 22.11.2018
Arguments concluded on : 17.09.2019
Judgment pronounced on : 17.09.2019
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs. 3,69,676/ along with interest and costs has been filed by the plaintiff Bank. Brief facts of the case are as under :
(a) Plaintiff is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No.XXIII of 1955) having its Central Office at CS (Comm.) No. 42/18 Page no. 1 of 6 State Bank of India vs. Adarsh Jha & Anr.
Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. It is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It is engaged in the business of banking. It has various local head offices including one at New Delhi and has various branch offices throughout India and a Centralized Recovery Centre called RACPC, situated at F 40, Third Floor, NDSEI, New Delhi which is under the administrative control of the Local Head office at New Delhi. Mr. Alok Manglik, Manager, who is duly empowered by the plaintiff Bank to sign, verify and institute the present suit.
(b) The defendant no. 1 & 2 (son and father) being the borrower & coborrower approached the Bhikaji Cama Place branch of plaintiff bank for availing Education Loan of Rs. 2,70,500/ for pursuing B.Tech in Ansal Institute of Technology (4 years course) and the said loan was applied vide application dated 13.08.2013 furnishing therein relevant particulars and filed relevant documents. Considering their said representation, the plaintiff bank agreed to grant the said education loan.
(c) The defendants furnished necessary documents for the said purpose and the plaintiff considering the said facts and documents sanctioned an education loan of Rs. 2,70,500/ on 19.08.2013 which was disbursed on 17.08.2013 by opening loan account bearing no. 33216271122. The said amount was disbursed at various stages to the concerned institute, as per requirement furnished by the defendants through their application. The said loan carried rate of interest @ 3.50 % above SBAR rate (which at that time was 9.70 %) thereby making the effect rate of interest to 13.20 % PA, with monthly rests, as per RBI CS (Comm.) No. 42/18 Page no. 2 of 6 State Bank of India vs. Adarsh Jha & Anr.
guidelines. The said loan was repayable in 84 EMIs of Rs. 4,951/ each which had to commence one year after completion of the course or after six months of getting a job, whichever is earlier.
(d) The defendants, while taking the said loan, executed following loan documents:
i) Education Loan Scheme Proposal form dated 13.08.2013;
ii) Agreement for term loan for SBI Education Loan Scheme dated 17.08.2013.
iii) Education Loan arrangement letter dated 17.08.2013;
iv) Changer letter dated 17.08.2013;
v) Acceptance of Sanction Letter dated 17.08.2013;
vi) Affidavit of defendant no. 1 dated 11.04.2011 &
vii) Affidavit of defendant no. 2 dated 11.04.2011.
(e) The defendants miserably failed to maintain the financial
discipline as they did not pay the installments regularly, whereby their account with the plaintiff bank became irregular and sticky. They did not bother to inform the employment status of defendant no. 1. Due to said continuous and persistent default, the said loan account was categorized as NPA as per RBI guidelines on 01.02.2017. The plaintiff bank was constrained to recall the entire outstanding dues along with upto date interest by serving a legal notice dated 20.09.2018 upon both the defendants.
(f) The defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amounts as per the details mentioned below: CS (Comm.) No. 42/18 Page no. 3 of 6 State Bank of India vs. Adarsh Jha & Anr.
i) Outstanding due as on 01.04.2017 towards Rs. 3,22,141.00/ principal as well as interest upto that date.
ii) Unapplied interest at applicable rates w.e.f. Rs. 64,535.29/ 01.04.2017 to 15.10.2018.
Balance Due Rs. 3,69,676.29/
Rounded off to Rs. 3,69,676/
Loan was granted by Bhikaji Cama Place branch of the plaintiff which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit.
2. Upon filing of the present suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. However, both the defendants could not be served in the ordinary manner. Therefore, both the defendants were served by substituted service by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 18.05.2019. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of both the defendants and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 29.05.2019.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined its AR Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, PW1 has reiterated the facts averred in the plaint and has placed reliance on the following documents:
a). The regulation no. 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulation, 1955 alongwith gazette notification of 2005 with memo dated 11.04.2008 as E. PW 1/1.
b). Education Loan Scheme proposal form dated 13.08.2013 as Ex. PW 1/2.
c). Agreement for term loan for SBI Education Loan scheme dated CS (Comm.) No. 42/18 Page no. 4 of 6 State Bank of India vs. Adarsh Jha & Anr.
17.08.2013 as Ex. PW 1/3.
d). Education Loan Arrangement letter dated 17.08.2013 as Ex. PW 1/4.
e). All the signatures of loan sanctioning authority concerned of plaintiff and defendants as MarkX, Y & Z (Colly).
f). Pan card, Icard issued by Horizon & concerned institute and copy of salary slip of defendant no. 2 as MarkA (Colly).
g). Photocopy of 10th and 12th marksheet & certificate of defendant no. 1 as MarkB (Colly).
h). Photocopy of bunch marksheet pertaining to semester exams of concerned institute as MarkC (Colly).
i). Original letter dated 17.08.2013 written by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff for reimbursement as Ex. PW 1/5.
j). Copy of Banker's cheque dated 19.08.2013 as MarkD.
k). Original subsequent disbursement dated 28.08.2014 as Ex. PW 1/6.
l). Copy of Banker's cheque dated 29.08.2014 as MarkE.
m). Copy of letter dated 04.02.2017 as Ex. PW 1/7.
n). Copy of legal notice dated 20.09.2018 as Ex. PW 1/8.
o). Postal receipts as Ex. PW 1/9 (Colly).
p). Return envelope as Ex. PW 1/10.
q). Statement of account duly certified under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act as Ex. PW 1/11.
r). Certificate of accrued interest as Ex. PW 1/12.
s). Certificate U/s 2A(c) of Banker's Book Act r/w section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 1/13.
4. The Court has heard Sh. Nishant Kumar Das, Ld. Proxy counsel for the plaintiff and has gone through the record with his assistance.
CS (Comm.) No. 42/18 Page no. 5 of 6 State Bank of India vs. Adarsh Jha & Anr.
5. The testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. The plaintiff has proved loan application form dated 13.08.2013 as Ex. PW 1/2, loan agreement dated 17.08.2013 as Ex. PW 1/3, education loan arrangement letter dated 17.08.2003 as Ex. PW 1/4, original letter dated 17.08.2013 written by defendant no. 1 as Ex. PW 1/5, copy of banker's cheque dated 19.08.2013 as MarkD, original subsequent disbursement dated 28.08.2014 as Ex. PW 1/6, copy of banker's cheque dated 29.08.2014 as MarkE, copy of letter dated 04.02.2017 as Ex. PW 1/7, copy of legal notice dated 20.09.2018 as Ex. PW 1/8, postal receipts as Ex. PW 1/9 (Colly), certified copy of statement of account as Ex. PW 1/11 and certificate U/s 2 A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act r/w Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 1/13. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is based on and is substantiated by documentary evidence. The defendants had deposited Rs. 8,000 on 18.08.2017 and therefore, the suit is within limitation. The loan was sanctioned by Bhikaji Cama Place branch of the plaintiff which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
6. In view of the unrebutted and uncontroverted evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the Court holds that it has been successful in substantiating its case against both the defendants and the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,69,676/ along with interest at the agreed rate of 13.20 % p.a. with monthly rests, from both the defendants, w.e.f. 16.10.2018 till the date of its realization. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Court (Sandeep Garg)
on 17.09.2019 Additional District Judge01,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
CS (Comm.) No. 42/18 Page no. 6 of 6
State Bank of India vs. Adarsh Jha & Anr.