Delhi District Court
Corporation Bank vs Kanchan Maheshwari on 11 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMENDER RANA
JSCC/ASCJ/GUARDIAN JUDGE (East) KKD COURTS DELHI
Suit no. 112/13
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0098492013
Corporation Bank
Having its head office at
Mangla Devi Temple road,
Mangalore, Karnataka
having its branch office at :
Plot No. 4, Local Shopping Centre,
Chetan Plaza, DAV Complex,
Mayur Vihar, New Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Kanchan Maheshwari
Proprietor
Corporate catering Services
W/o Sh. Anoop Maheshwari
20B, OCS Apartments
Mayur Vihar PhaseI Extn.
Delhi110091
....Defendants
Date of institution of Suit : 01.04.2013
Arguments heard/order reserved : 08.08.2014
Date of decision : 11.08.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.42,735.00 UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.The Plaintiff Bank is a body corporate incorporated and constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act. 1980, having its Head Office at Mangaldevi Temple Road, Mangalore, Karnataka, and having its branch office at Plot No. 4, Local Shopping Centre, Chetan Plaza, DAV Complex, Mayur Vihar Phase1 Extn., Delhi. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.42,735/ against the defendants through its chief manage Shri D.V. Srinivas. On 05.12.2010 defendant opened a current account bearing No. CBCA/01/864 with the plaintiff. On 12.12.2010 defendant approached the plaintiff bank for a temporary overdraft facility to meet out the urgent requirements of its business. On request, defendant was allowed to withdraw in cash a sum of Rs. 32,000/ by way of overdraft against his cheque bearing no. 210188 dated 12.12.2010 drawn on Bank of Baroda Mayur Vihar Delhi. The defendant agreed to repay the said sum with interest and other charges without default. It is averred that after availing the aforesaid facility from the plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to pay the amount of overdraft facility availed by him. Several reminders were issued to the Defendant to pay the amount. The defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline and failed to honour his commitments. The plaintiff Bank specifically issued demand notice dated 24.03.2011 in accordance with the law and called upon the defendant to repay the entire balance outstanding amount of Rs. 32,000/ towards the principle apart from interest. It is submitted that despite receipt of the said demand notice, the Defendant failed to comply with the notice and hence the present suit. That Defendant neither cleared the outstanding dues of the Plaintiff Bank nor replied to the notice. It is averred that as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 42,735 (Rupees Fourth Two Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five Only) towards balance outstanding amount as on 13.02.2013 alongwith future prevalent rate of interest which is 18.25% per annum at monthly rest till the date of realization in full.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that initially the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff bank under Order 37 CPC, thereafter, at the request of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, the instant suit was treated as an ordinary civil suit for recovery.
3. Summons for settlement of issues could not be served upon the defendant through ordinary process and consequently, defendant was served by way of publication in the newspaper "Mahamedha" dated 25.12.2013. However, defendant has opted not to appear and contest the suit and accordingly she was proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.01.2014.
4. In support of their case, plaintiff bank has examined the sole witness i.e., Sh. D.V. Srinivas, Chief Manager of plaintiff bank, who appeared in the witness box and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e., Copy of the Power of attorney of the deponent is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), the account opening form for current account and letter of proprietorship are Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3, the cheque bearing no. 210188 dated 11.12.2010 is Ex. PW1/4, the return memo dated 27.12.2010 is Ex. PW1/5, carbon copy of legal notice dated 21.03.2013 with postal receipt are Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7, the certified copy of statement of account is Ex. PW1/8.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record of the case carefully.
6. The plaintiff has placed on record documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/8. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant is exparte. So, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Press Trust of India Ltd. V/s. Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. ) & Ors. 2012 VI AD Delhi 2005". In view of the same plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 32,000/ advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff bank.
7. The plaintiff is also claiming interest @ 18.25% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Evidently, there is no admitted rate of interest between the parties. However, the plaintiff has been denied the enjoyment of his outstanding sum. Consequently, I am of the opinion that he deserves to be compensated for the said loss as the said sum could have been gainfully invested by the plaintiff in some fruitful venture. Consequently, acting under the Code of Section 34 CPC, interest @ 9% per annum upon the adjudged sum of Rs.32,000/ from the date of returning memo i.e. 27.12.2010 till its realization, is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
8. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court ( Dharmender Rana)
on this 11th day of August, 2014. ASCJ/JSCC/G. Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.