Bangalore District Court
M/S Syndicate Bank vs Sri Ramesh on 6 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), BANGALORE CITY.
PRESENT:
SRI. PARAMESHWARA PRASANNA ,
B.A., LL.B.,
LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-63)
BENGALURU
DATED: THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.
O.S.NO.5137 / 2015
PLAINTIFF M/s Syndicate Bank,
Kempapura Branch,
Bangalore-560 024.
Represented by its
Branch Manager,
Sri NSNK Durga Prasad
(By Sri.Jayavardhan.B.R, Advocate)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1 Sri Ramesh,
S/o Sri Rangappa Gowda,
Residing at No.58/11, 5th Cross,
Cholun Palya, Binnipet,
Bengaluru-560 023.
2 Mr. Venkatesh.T,
S/o Sri Thimmappa,
Residing at No.1418,
2nd stage, 4th Cross,
Kamalanagar, Sannaki Bayalu,
Bangalore-560 079.
(Exparte)
2 O.S.No.5137 /2015
1. Date of institution of the suit : 15.06.2015
2. Nature of the suit : Money Suit
3. Date of commencement of : 05.08.2016
recording of evidence
4. Date on which the judgment : 06.08.2016
was pronounced
5. Duration : Years months days
1 1 21
(Parameshwara Prasanna.B.,)
LXII ACCJ (CCH-63 )
BANGALORE
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff Bank has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:
The plaintiff -Bank is a Nationalised Bank with its Head Office at Manipal and a Branch at Kempapura, Bengaluru. The plaintiff- Bank is represented by its Branch Manager- Sri.NSNK Durga Prasad who is the authorized to sign and verify the plaint. 3 O.S.No.5137 /2015 The first defendant is an individual who is the principal borrower and defendant No.2 is the guarantor to the loan sanctioned to the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff Bank for financial facility of Rs.1,20,000/- for the purpose of purchase of vehicle - New Bajaj Auto Rickshaw and filed necessary application for availment of loan of Rs.1,20,000/-. On 08.03.2012 the plaintiff-Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,20,000/- by accepting defendant No.2 as a guarantor/co-obligant for the said loan. In consideration of loan amount, both defendants have executed a Composite Hypothecation Agreement along with Stamp Paper Document for having accepted terms and conditions of loan transaction. On the same day the defendants have executed On Demand Promissory Note in favour of plaintiff-Bank. As per the terms of agreement, the defendants liable to pay interest @ 11.75% per annum along with monthly rests. The defendants have also agreed to pay over due interest at the rate of 2.00 % per annum with monthly rests. The defendants agreed to repay the loan amount with interest in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,785/-. But subsequent to availing of loan, defendants have not repaid loan amount with interest as per the agreed repayment 4 O.S.No.5137 /2015 schedule. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants did not repay outstanding loan amount. Thus finally the plaintiff-Bank got issued legal notice to the defendants directing them to repay loan amount. But then also, the defendants failed to repay loan amount. As on 31/1/2015 a sum of Rs.1,07,183/- is due and outstanding from the defendants. Therefore the plaintiff Bank constrained to file this suit for recovery of amount.
3. Since the summons could not be served in the ordinary way to the defendants, the summons was duly published through paper publication and as the defendants failed to appear before this Court, inspite of service of process through paper publication, defendants 1 and 2 placed ex-parte by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2015. Thereafter the case was posted for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff side.
4. On behalf of the plaintiff Bank, its Branch Manager Smt.Jayalakshmi examined as Pw.1- and the documents produced by the plaintiff Bank are marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
5. Heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff. Perused the records.
5 O.S.No.5137 /2015
6. The following points arise for the consideration of this Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,07,183/- from the defendants?
2. What Order or Decree?
7. The findings of the court on above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT.No.1:
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of money. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that first defendant is an principal borrower and defendant No.2 is the guarantor to the loan sanctioned to the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff Bank for financial facility of Rs.1,20,000/- for the purpose of purchase of vehicle - New Bajaj Auto Rickshaw and filed necessary application for availment of loan of Rs.1,20,000/-. On 08.03.2012 the plaintiff-Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,20,000/- by accepting defendant No.2 as a guarantor/co-obligant for the said loan. In consideration of loan 6 O.S.No.5137 /2015 amount, both defendants have executed a Composite Hypothecation Agreement along with Stamp Paper Document for having accepted terms and conditions of loan transaction. On the same day the defendants have executed On Demand Promissory Note in favour of plaintiff-Bank. As per the terms of agreement, defendants under taken to pay interest @ 11.75% per annum along with monthly rests. The defendants have also agreed to pay over due interest at the rate of 2.00 % per annum with monthly rests. The defendants agreed to repay the loan amount with interest in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,785/-. But subsequently defendants defendant defaulted in payment of installments and they have not repaid loan amount with interest as per the agreed repayment schedule. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants did not repay outstanding loan amount. Thus finally the plaintiff-Bank got issued legal notice to the defendants directing them to repay loan amount. But then also, the defendants failed to repay loan amount. As on 31/1/2015 a sum of Rs.1,07,183/- is due and outstanding from the defendants to the Plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff Bank constrained to file this suit for recovery of amount. 7 O.S.No.5137 /2015
9. Since the summons could not be served in the ordinary way to the defendants, the summons was duly published through paper publication and as the defendants failed to appear before this Court, inspite of service of process through paper publication, defendants 1 and 2 placed ex-parte by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2015. Thereafter the case was posted for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff side.
10. The plaintiff Bank in order to prove its case has examined its Branch Manager as Pw.1. Her affidavit is filed by way of examination-in-chief, wherein she has reiterated the facts averred in the plaint.
Through, Pw.1 the documents produced by the plaintiff Bank are marked as follows:
Ex.P.1 - Loan application dated 23.02.2012 Ex.P.2 - Composite Hypothecation agreement along with stamp paper dated 8.3.2012 Ex.P.3 - Guarantee agreement along with stamp paper dated 8.3.2012 Ex.P.4 - On Demand Promissory Note dated 8.3.2012 8 O.S.No.5137 /2015 Ex.P.5 - Office copy of legal Notice dated 13.2.2015 Exs.P.6, 7 - Two Postal receipts pertaining to Ex.P.5 Ex.P.8,9 - Two returned RPAD Covers Ex.P.10 - The attested copy of the statement of accounts Ex.P.11 - The Paper publication dated 7.10.2015 published in "Samyuktha Karnataka"
Newspaper, wherein summons to defendant has been taken.
11. Ex.P.1 shows that the defendants 1 and 2 applied for the loan and Ex.P.2 establishes that the loan defendants have executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement by agreeing to repay the loan in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,785/- of every month of last day. Ex.P.3 Guarantee agreement and Ex.p.4 is on Demand Promissory Note further confirms the loan. Since the defendants are placed exparte and not appeared and contested the suit the oral evidence given by Pw.1 and the documents produced by the plaintiff Bank marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11 remained totally un-rebutted. The fact that the defendants are defaulter in repayment of loan to the plaintiff Bank and Rs.1,07,183/- is due from the defendants to the plaintiff Bank 9 O.S.No.5137 /2015 are well established. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.1. The plaintiff Bank has proved its case. Therefore, the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the suit. But in view of the settled principle of law I am of the opinion that interest of 15% claimed by the plaintiff is on high side and awarding of 10% interest will be proper and reasonable by bearing in mind the rate of interest at the bank on deposit . Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
12.POINT No.2 : In view of the above discussions and findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,07,183/- (Rupees One Lakh Seven thousand One hundred and Eighty Three Only) to the plaintiff Bank with future interest at 10% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount.10 O.S.No.5137 /2015
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of August, 2016) (Parameshwara Prasanna.B) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63) Bengaluru ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Pw.1 Smt.Jayalakshmi.N
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
-NIL-
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Loan application dated 23.2.2012
Ex.P.2 Composite Hypothecation Agreement
Ex.P.3 Guarantee Agreement
Ex.P.4 On demand promissory note
Ex.P.5 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P.6, 7 Two postal receipts pertaining to Ex.P.5
Exs.P.8, 9 Two returned RPAD Covers
Ex.P.10 Attested copy of the statement of
accounts.
Ex.P.11 Paper Publication
11 O.S.No.5137 /2015
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
NIL
(Parameshwara Prasanna.B)
LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
12 O.S.No.5137 /2015