Delhi District Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs Shri Pal on 25 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUMRENT CONTROLLER (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 74/2008
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at:
"Landmark", Race Course Circle
Vadodara390007.
Having its Branch Office at:
Plot No. 7, S.D. Tower, Sector8
Rohini, New Delhi110085
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Ankur Khole.
...Plaintiff.
Versus
Shri Pal
Borrower
S/o Mussadi Lal B 129, Sec. 41,
Noida201302. ...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 04.12.2008.
Date of Arguments : 25.01.2014.
Date of Judgment : 25.01.2014.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,86,590.82/.
Suit No. 74/08. 1 of 4
ICICI BANK LTD VS SHRI PAL
JUDGMENT:
The present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,86,590.82/ has been filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant borrower. However, the same was ordered to be treated as an ordinary recovery suit vide order dated 24.02.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan of Rs.3,98,000/ for purchase of a vehicle namely INDIGO./DLS. Upon such request, on 02.12.2004, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,98,000/. The defendant is the principal borrower of the plaintiff bank for the purchase of the said vehicle. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan alongwith interest in 59 equated monthly installments of Rs. 8205/ each and executed an Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Demand Promissory Note and Irrevocable Power of Attorney. The vehicle of the defendants registered with the registration authority with registration no. DL3CAF3290 and the same was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank in terms of loan documents. It is further stated that after availing the said loan from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement regarding repayment of amount either towards principal or towards the interest or charges thereon and several ESC instructions/ cheques issued by the defendants for repayment of loan were Suit No. 74/08. 2 of 4 ICICI BANK LTD VS SHRI PAL dishonoured or returned unpaid. Several reminders were issued to the defendants to pay the outstanding loan amount but to no avail. The plaintiff company finally issued a demand notice dated 06.09.2008 calling upon the defendant to repay the entire outstanding amount and to hand over the peaceful possession of the vehicle which is hypothecated to the bank under the agreement. However, despite the receipt of the notice, the defendant failed to comply with the notice(s). Lastly, it is stated that as per the account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,86,590.82/ towards principal, interest and other charges. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant and the same were served upon the defendant through publication. However, when the defendant failed to appear, he was proceeded exparte on 13.08.2012 by my learned predecessor. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its evidence and examined Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, authorized representative of the plaintiff bank as PW1.
4. PW1 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, authorized representative of the plaintiff bank deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the copy of power of attorney as Ex. PW1/1, original loan agreement as Ex. PW1/2, original demand promissory note as Ex. PW1/3, original irrevocable power of attorney is Ex. PW 1/4, copy of demand notice dated 6.9.2008 is Ex. PW1/5, postal receipt is Ex. PW1/6, certified copy of statement of account dated 20.11.2008 is Ex. PW1/7, copy of the power of attorney in favour of Mr. Ankur Khole is Mark X. Suit No. 74/08. 3 of 4 ICICI BANK LTD VS SHRI PAL
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record very carefully.
6. As the testimony of PW1 has been entirely unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the plaintiff bank has become entitled for a decree. As regards the interest, there is a clause that in case of defaults, the rate of interest would be 24% per annum. However, the same is an exaggerated rate of interest and is a penalty clause and the penalties cannot be enforced under Indian Contract Act. However, considering that the defendant has defaulted in making the payment to the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that it will be equitable if interest at the rate of 11% per annum is granted to the plaintiff. Thus, a decree of Rs.1,86,590.82/ alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (SUMIT DASS)
on 25.01.2014. SCJCUMRC NORTH
(This judgment contains four pages and ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
each page bears my signature.)
Suit No. 74/08. 4 of 4
ICICI BANK LTD VS SHRI PAL
S74/2008
25.01.2014.
Present: Ms. Isha Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is exparte.
She submits that an application u/o 39 Rule 6 CPC is pending adjudication which is now not been pressed by them. She submits that the said application be dismissed as withdrawn.
Heard.
Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SUMIT DASS) SCJcumRC (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi/25.01.2014.
Suit No. 74/08. 5 of 4 ICICI BANK LTD VS SHRI PAL