Delhi District Court
And It'S Branch Office vs Ms. Shweta on 31 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Mahima Rai Singh
CS SCJ 881/21
CNR Number: DLWT-03-002088-2021
Union Bank of India
(E-corporation Bank)
Having Head Office at:-
Union Bank Bhawan,
Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-900021
And it's Branch Office
A-354, Outer Ring Road, Block-A,
Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-87
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Jitendra Sah
PS: Paschim Vihar
Email- [email protected]
......Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Shweta
W/o Sh. DeepakWZ-13/A, Shakurpur Village,
Hari Nagar, Delhi-34.
Also at:-
I177, Gali No. 9, Hari Nagar,
Ext. Badarpur, Jaitpur,
South Delhi44
Mob. No. 9654022241
......Defendant
Date of Institution : 26.08.2021
Date on which judgment was reserved : 15.10.2022
Date of pronouncing judgment : 31.10.2022
CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 1 of 7
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 64,964/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 13.90% PER
ANNUM
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the present case are as under :
1.That the plaintiff is a Bank which amalgamated with Union Bank of India vide Gazette Noticatin dated 04.03.2022 and now known as Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Corporation Bank) is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated constituted under the banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office Union Bank Bhawan, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 900021 and having its branch office at A-354, Outer Ring Road, Block- A, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-87.
2. It is submitted that Sh. Jitendra Sah is a constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff Bank and is authorized by Power of Attorney dated 27.08.2009 from the plaintiff bank. He is well aware about the facts of the case and as such in position to sign and verify the pleadings.
3. The defendant (being borrower) approached the plaintiff Bank for Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna Cash Credit (PMYCC) facility of Rs. 50,000/- for Business Purpose/ Working Capitals under continuing security of hypotehcation of stocks/ book debts.
CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 2 of 7
4. It is submitted that the request of the defendant was duly considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned the the facility vides CSI dated 06.10.2015 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
5. That the defendant agreed to repay the the said loan amount alongwith floating rate of interest i.e. 11.90% per annum compounded annually and monthly rest. It was also stipulated that in case default in payment scheduled amount on the due date penal interest @ 2% per annum shall be charged over the normal rate of interest and recover separately.
6. That the said defendant has agreed with terms and condition and acknowledge/ sign the CSI dated 06.10.2015 and also exectued the the following documents dated 06.10.2015 respectively in favour of plaintiff bank:-
a) Demand Promissory Note dated.
b) Take delivery letter to D.P.N.
c) Common deed of hypothecation of movable/ assets/ debts.
d) Letter undertaking cum declaration from the borrower.
e) Acknowledgement of debt/ liability by the borrower dated 28.08.2018.
7. That pursuant to the aforesaid documents executed, the plaintiff CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 3 of 7 bank disbursed the said sum to the defendant in terms of the aforesaid loan agreements.
8. That defendant also agreed to pay interest and other charges to the plaintiff bank on the principal amount of the said facility from time to time as per the terms and conditions set out in the aforesaid terms and conditions. That after availing the aforesaid facility from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions either towards principal or towards the interest or charges thereon. Several reminders were issued to the defendant to pay the amount on account of the above said dishonor but to no avail. The defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline and failed to honors his commitments.
9. That, the plaintiff bank submits that in accordance with the directives of the Reserve Bank of India by way of prudent accounting norms the plaintiff bank classified the aforesaid loan account no. 560656001705712 as non performing assets.
10. That the plaintiff bank specifically issued demand notice dated 22.07.2021 in accordance with the law terminated the said facility entered between the plaintiff and the defendant and called upon the defendant to repay the entire outstanding amount. Despite receipt of the said demand notice, the defendant failed to comply with the notice and as such as on date and also failed to make the outstanding to the plaintiff bank as per the terms and conditions of the terms agreed. CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 4 of 7
11. That the plaintiff bank is filing the true and certified copy of extract of statement of account no. 560656001705712 duly certified under Banker Books of Evidence Act, which shows a debit balance of Rs. 64,964/- inclusive of interest debited as on 31.07.2021.
12. Summons were issued to the defendant through publication and the same was served on 08.06.2022. However, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and also failed to file the written statement within the time prescribed. Thereafter, the Court ordered to proceed exparte against the defendant vide its order dated 27.08.2022.
13. During ex-parte evidence, the AR of the plaintiff bank Shri Jitendra Sah examined as PW-1 and relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Ex PW1/1 (OSR) is the copy of power of attorney. (2) Ex PW1/2 is the CSI dated 06.10.2015. (3) Ex PW1/3 is the demand promissory note. (4) Ex PW1/4 is the delivery letter to D.P.N. (5) Ex PW1/5 is the Deed of Hypotehcation of movables/assets/debts.
(6) Ex PW1/6 is the letter of undertaking and declaration from the borrower.
(7) Ex PW1/7 is the acknowledge of debt dated 28.08.2018. (8) Ex PW1/8 & Ex PW1/9 (Colly) are the true copy of CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 5 of 7 demand notice and origional postal receipts. (9) Ex PW1/10 is the true copy of statement of account. (10) Ex PW1/11 is the Certificate given by the officer/ manager in charge of the computer system. (11) Ex PW1/1 A is the Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2020.
14. Thereafter exparte PE was closed. I have heard the ex-parte arguments as addressed by Sh. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the case file alongwith the documents annexed and exhibited.
15. The defendant has chosen to remain absent during the entire course of proceedings and henceforth they neither cross examined the plaintiff witness nor led any evidence. Hence, the averments made by the plaintiff remain unchallenged and unrebutted. The suit is within the period of limitation as well as within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
16. The case of the plaintiff is that despite repeated notice of demand, the defendant has neither replied nor honoured all his undertakings and assurances to keep the account update and hence, has prayed for recovery of Rs. 64,964/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 13.90% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. However, the rate of interest is too exorbitant. Thus, in view of Section 34 of CPC and prevalent market rate of interest, the suit CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 6 of 7 is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of the sum of Rs. 64,964/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @10.% per annum from the date 09.07.2021 till its realization. The plaintiff is also held entitled to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Mahima Rai Singh)
on 31th day of October 2022 SCJ-cum-RC (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 7 pages.)
CS SCJ 881/21 Union Bank of India vs. Shweta Page No. 7 of 7