Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Saini vs Standard Chartered Bank on 11 August, 2015
THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-11, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Civil Suit No.558A/2014
In the matter of:-
Anil Kumar Saini
Son of Shri Fateh Singh,
R/o F-16, Shastri Nagar,
Near Shiv Mandir,
Delhi-110052. .........Plaintiff
VS.
1. Standard Chartered Bank
17, Parliament Street,
Allahabad Bank Building,New Delhi.
2. Shri Jaideep Sharma,
Manager, Standard Chartered Bank,
Express Building,
Third Floor, Bahadur Shah
Jafar Marg,New Delhi. ........Defendant
Date of institution of the Suit : 18.11.2005
Date on which arguments heard : 04.08.2015
Date of decision : 11.08.2015
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
Apparently the Plaintiff availed of a loan facility of Rs.1,80,000/- from the Defendant Bank for a Maruti car and subsequently repaid Rs.1,45,750/- and presumed that only Rs.34,250/- was due which could have used for interest and, therefore, was inclined to settle the loan account for which he was offered by some bank official that loan account would be settled for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Purportedly the Plaintiff arranged the said amount but in the meantime the bank seized the vehicle from a third person who the Plaintiff claims to be the person who purchased the car from him and thereafter the bank issued a demand letter for a sum of Rs.2,00,931/-. Now the Plaintiff is aggrieved and wants that the Defendant bank should not dispose off the Maruti car (permanent injunction) and should return the car to him (mandatory injunction).
Anil Kumar Saini Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. 1
2. The Defendant filed WS and taken several objections such as material concealment, improper valuation, suit becoming infructuous on account of sale of car by the bank and wrong assumption of Plaintiff regarding outstanding dues. Obviously Plaintiff filed replication denying the stand of the Defendant.
3. Ld. Predecessor though framed certain issues on 16.02.2012 but subsequently had modified the same and re-framed the issues vide order dated 28.04.2012 which are as under:-
i). Whether the suit filed by the Plaintiff becomes infructuous as the defendant has allegedly sold the vehicle in question?OPD
ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction?
iii). Any other relief?
4. At this stage, certain procedural development is required to be noted. On 11.02.2008, in the absence of Defendant certain issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor and on 04.08.2008, evidence of Plaintiff was recorded in Ex-parte mode and PE was closed. But subsequently an amendment application was filed by Plaintiff side which was allowed and thereupon Defendant was also granted opportunity to file amended WS and Plaintiff was granted opportunity to file amended replication. Thereafter, the further events about framing of issues in the year 2012 as indicated above occurred. Again the Defendant started absenting and consequently the other Ld. Predecessor proceeded in Ex-parte manner and Plaintiff chosen to rely upon his evidence dated 04.08.2008 (see order dated 07.08.2013). Thereafter, one application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Plaintiff and matter remained pending for arguments. Ultimately, on 04.08.2015 the judgment was reserved or written submission as the case may as detailed in procedural order sheets of the file.
Anil Kumar Saini Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. 2
5. I have perused the file and I am proceeding to record findings and reasons therefor.
6. It is clear from the order of Ld. Predecessor dated 28.04.2012 that permanent injunction prayer had become infructuous. The said order had not been challenged by any of the parties and, therefore, the same binds the present court.
7. Both the issues are taken together for discussion. It is clear that Defendants have not led any evidence and rather vide order dated 07.08.2013 Ld. Predecessor had struck off their defence. Even no cross-examination has been conducted in respect of Plaintiff's witness i.e. PW1. I have perused the affidavit of PW1 which apparently is a repetition of averments of the plaint. There is nothing in the plaint or affidavit of Plaintiff to show that Plaintiff was ever willing to clear the outstanding amount of the bank. What the Plaintiff is claiming is that in his opinion only Rs.34,250/- and interest thereon with certain miscellaneous charges are due which he was willing to pay. In my considered view, the assumption of the Plaintiff is fallacious. He appears to have assumed that loan amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was static and out of that he had already paid Rs.1,45,750/- so this can only result in balance of Rs.34,250/-. The Plaintiff has specifically used an expression "interest on it" in respect of Rs.34,250/-. This is fallacious. As per normal business practice of any commercial bank, the interest has to be calculated on the entire loan amount which may be flexible with the payment of installments. Even the Ex.PW1/1 is showing that interest would be chargeable on daily outstanding balance. Meaning thereby that after payment of each installment, the total amount on which interest was to be charged could have been treated as reduced. Therefore, even if to accept that Rs.1,45,750/- was paid, there is no material to believe that only Rs.34,250/- could have been the balance amount. Accepting that such interpretation will lead to a conclusion that bank was not charging any interest on the loan amount but had agreed to charge an interest only when any default is made by the person thereby leaving certain outstanding dues. As such, in the absence of any willingness of the Plaintiff to clear the outstanding loan account, no direction can be passed for delivering the vehicle.
Anil Kumar Saini Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. 3
8. The other point raised by the Plaintiff is that some officials of bank had informed him for settling the loan for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. What is interesting to note is the fact that the Defendant has not provided any details either about the bank official or about the date when such information was given. The claim of the Plaintiff is so vague that he has used plural expression in this regard i.e. "bank officials" in plaint and also in his affidavit. It seems that the Plaintiff also wants to rely upon this position that since bank had informed for a settlement of Rs.50,000/- it should have taken the said amount and released the vehicle to him. I am of the opinion that before we can proceed on this assumption, we have to have a valid proof about such proposal of bank regarding settlement for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Apart from a bare claim of the Plaintiff, there is no other substantive material on record to establish this fact. Moreover, the claim of Plaintiff in this regard is clearly vague. We cannot rely upon the proposition advanced by the Plaintiff regarding such claim. There is no other reason provided by the Plaintiff to claim a recovery of vehicle.
9. I am further of the view that in the garb of a mandatory injunction, the Plaintiff is primarily seeking an injunction of possession of vehicle which cannot be permitted due to bar created by Section-41(h) of Specific Relief Act. Be that as it may, even on merits, as discussed above the Plaintiff does not have any case.
10. In view of the above discussion, Issue No.1 is decided against the Defendants in view of the fact that their defence was struck off and there is no other material which can discharge onus of such issue. Issue No.2 is decided against the Plaintiff as he cannot claim repossession of vehicle.
11. It is held the Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Suit is dismissed. However, in facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. Decree be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open
court today on 11.08.2015 (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
CJ-11/CENTRAL/DELHI
Anil Kumar Saini Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. 4