Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Limited vs Neha Chaudhary on 3 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-12
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS (COMM) NO. 469/22
M/S ICICI BANK LTD.
Having its Registered Office At :
Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara-390007.
Having its Branch Office At:
E-3, Jhandewalan, Near Jhandewalan
Metro Station, New Delhi-110055
...Plaintiff
Vs.
Neha Chaudhary
S/o Mr. Kirshan Bir Singh,
R/o Flat no. E-105, Tower
E, Gulshan, Ikebana, Section-143,
Near Abar Marg, Noida, UP-201301
Also at
Thales Dis, Techology INDIA P. Ltd, Safenet Infotech,
Plot no. A-12,
Pride Tower, Sect-125, Noida, UP-201301
...Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 05.02.2022
Date of hearing final argument : 28.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 03.10.2024
Plaintiff is represented by Counsel Mr. Shailendra Babbar.
Digitally signed
by RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date:
2024.10.03
16:44:06 +0530
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 469/22 Page No. 1/ 6
ICICI Bank v Neha Chaudhary
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a suit instituted by plaintiff bank seeking recovery of Rs.10,05,771/- alongwith interest pendente-lite and future @11.50% per annum against Defendant.
2. a) As per facts briefly stated in the plaint, Plaintiff is a body incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 having branch office at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. The suit was instituted through its Authorized representative Sh.Pankaj Jain, on behalf of Plaintiff.
b) The Plaintiff bank was approached by Defendant for grant of personal loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. On assurance of Defendant to repay the said loan amount in time, Plaintiff agreed to grant personal loan to him vide Agreement. The Credit facility application form and other documents were also executed on 26.08.2020 for a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to Defendant and same was disbursed to Defendant. The same was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.33,039/- each alongwith interest @11.50% as per repayment schedule.
3. The Defendant went irregular in repaying the loan and defaulted in payment of EMIs. Defendant failed to make payment of Rs.33,039/- on 07.12.2020 and thereafter also failed to make further payments. Plaintiff issued a Loan Agreement Recall Notice dated 18.10.2021 upon Defendant which went unresponded. As on the date of the suit, the Defendant is liable to pay Rs.8,57,861/- alongwith interest ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 469/22 Page No. 2/ 6 ICICI Bank v Neha Chaudhary Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2024.10.03 16:44:16 +0530 and other charges which come to Rs.10,05,771.80/- as on 23.12.2021. The details of the foreclosure are mentioned in para no.11 of the Plaint.
4. Summons of the suit were served on the Defendant. The Defendant did not appear despite service through substituted mode. Her right to file written statement stood forfeited by Order dated 05.01.2024.
5. Plaintiff company to prove its case has examined its AR Sh. Jitender Mehndiratta as the sole witness as PW-1, who has proved on record the Copy of the power of attorney is exhibited as EX-PW1/1 (OSR); Preliminary Credit Facility application form as Ex.PW1/2; Credit facility Application form as EX-PW1/3; Verified Airtel Bill and verified payslips of the Defendant as Ex. PW1/4; Loan recall Notice dated 18.10.2021 on all addresses of the Defendant as Ex. PW1/5 and its postal receipt are marked as Mark X-1, X-2 and X-3, Foreclosure prepayment of the loan account dated 23.12.2023 as per which principal outstanding amount is Rs. 8,57,861/- as Ex. PW1/6 (at page no. 58 of paperbook); Statement of Account alongwith repayment schedule dated 23.12.2021 as Ex. PW1/7 (at page no. 60 of paperbook); Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian evidence act, 1872 is exhibited as EX- PW1/8; Certificate under Section 2A of the Banker Book evidence act, 1891 is exhibited as EX-PW1/9.
6. I have heard submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 469/22 Page No. 3/ 6 ICICI Bank v Neha Chaudhary Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2024.10.03 16:44:22 +0530
7. The dispute between parties is commercial in nature and covered within the ambit of Section-2 (1)(c)(i) of the CC Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 has held that provisions of the CC Act are to be strictly followed and adhered to. Plaintiff has proved the statement of account dated 23.12.2021 as Ex.PW- 1/7 in support of its case. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. The exhibited documents including the statement of account and Legal Notice are duly certified under The Evidence Act, which is as per the provisions of Section-34 of the Evidence act and Section-4 of Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, 1891 (herein after BBE Act). Section- 2A of BBE Act deals with printouts of bank statements and the copies which are certified are deemed to be certified copies under the Act. The statement of account is duly accompanied by a certificate under Section- 65 B of The Evidence Act. Reliance can be placed upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Om Prakash Vs. CBI (2017 VII AD DEL
649) and upon M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Surbhi Gupta (DOD as 31.01.2018).
8. Defendant has remained absent despite service. She has chosen not to come forward for cross-examination of PW-1 to contradict or disprove the case of Plaintiff. The case of plaintiff has gone un- challenged and duly corroborated by documents. I have no reason to disbelieve the version of plaintiff qua the outstanding dues. Applying priori and posteriori reasoning, I am satisfied that Plaintiff has been able ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 469/22 Page No. 4/ 6 ICICI Bank v Neha Chaudhary Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2024.10.03 16:44:28 +0530 to prove its case against Defendant.
9. Plaintiff has also claimed an interest @11.50% p.a. on the principal amount pendent-lite and future.
10. Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. V. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444 has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts. The said Judgment was relied upon in the R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018). The transaction in question is a commercial one and keeping in mind the ratio of settled law as above, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted pendente-lite and future simple rate of interest @8% p.a.
11. The suit of the plaintiff stands decreed for a sum of Rs.10,05,771/- alongwith interest @8% p.a pendente lite and future till realization to be paid by defendant.
RELIEF
12. The suit stands decreed in favour of Plaintiff against Defendant and Plaintiff is entitled for the following :-
(a). a decree for sum of Rs.10,05,771/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) against Defendant alongwith interest @8% p.a pendente lite and future till realization to be ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 469/22 Page No. 5/ 6 ICICI Bank v Neha Chaudhary Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date:
2024.10.03 16:44:34 +0530 paid by defendant.
(b). The cost of the suit alongwith pleader's fee is also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI
(Announced in open Date: 2024.10.03
16:44:43 +0530
court on 03.10.2024) (Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-12
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts /Delhi ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 469/22 Page No. 6/ 6 ICICI Bank v Neha Chaudhary