Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd And Ors on 16 September, 2023

               IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GULATI-II
     ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI
       (since transferred vide Order No. 35/G-I/Gaz.IA/DHC/2023 dated
                               29.08.2023)



CS NO. 652/2017
CNR NO. DLCT010024692017

SHRI DHARAMVIR RANA
S/O SHRI MAAN SINGH RANA
R/O 23, MITRA VIHAR APPARTMENTS
PITAMPURA, DELHI-110034                                            .....PLAINTIFF

                                   VERSUS

DELHI STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
31, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG,
DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002                                       .....DEFENDANT


       Date of Institution                         :       14.02.2017
       Date of Reserving                           :       18.08.2023
       Date of Decision                            :       16.09.2023


       SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 4,48,654/- (RUPEES FOUR
       LAC FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED
       FIFTY FOUR ONLY)

                                   JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 4,48,654/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at rate of 24% per annum on the basis of the Plaint pleading inter-alia as follows:-

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 1/20 i. That the plaintiff was recruited as Clerk on 11.10.1973 with the defendant no. 1 i.e. the Delhi State Cooperative Bank and the plaintiff had very good and unblemished service record and it is the hardwork of the plaintiff, due to which several appreciation letters have been granted to him by the higher authorities of the bank and have been promoted to the post of AGM at the time of his retirement.
ii. That the plaintiff retired on 31.05.2016 and prior to that his relieving orders have been given by all the concerned departments/sections of the bank without any objection of any nature whatsoever.
iii. That during the service of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was posted as a Manager at Moti Nagar Branch in October-2007 but no charge or record was handed over to him by the then manager of the said branch despite several oral requests of the plaintiff and thus the same was brought in the knowledge of superior authorities also.
iv. That during the normal course of business of the branch it came in the knowledge of the plaintiff that certain files were not traceable in the branch and accordingly he had informed the superior authorities and had also written the letter to the previous manager but no action was taken by the bank authorities in order to save the skin of earlier manager or the concerned staff of the bank who are kith and kins of the bank management.
CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 2/20 v. That the plaintiff had written complaint/letter to the bank authorities but no positive response was given by the bank authorities to the plaintiff nor any departmental enquiry was initiated against the erring officials of the bank who were posted in the said branch prior to the plaintiff despite several letters of the plaintiff.
vi. That when the plaintiff requested time and again orally as well as in writing to the higher authorities in respect of missing files of which charge was never handed over to the plaintiff, the bank authorities transferred the amount of said missing files in the shadow account being the non-recoverable amount. vii. That the plaintiff, after three months of his retirement, was planning a relaxed life after giving his precious 40 years to the defendant bank however he got a set-back when he received a letter No. H.O./Esst. 7845/16-17 dated 30.08.2016 which was sent by the defendant no. 17 vide which the defendant no. 1 bank had made a deduction of Rs. 3,87,064/- on account of recovery of some loan cases of which the files were missing from Moti Nagar branch.
viii. That the bank never conducted any inquiry in respect of above said alleged missing files despite the same was brought in the knowledge of the bank by the plaintiff nor even any notice was issued to the plaintiff during his service time. ix. That even otherwise the plaintiff has no concern with the missing of files nor is liable for recovery of the amount of said missing files.
CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 3/20 x. That it is also pertinent to mention here that the bank is completely silent with regard to recovery efforts in the said missing files and it is an admitted fact that the amount of said missing files has been transferred in the shadow account which is maintained by the bank for the non-recoverable amount. The said amount was transferred by the defendants through the Board Resolution of the Bank.
xi. That when the plaintiff was posted as a Branch Manager at Moti Nagar in the year 2007 from Shahbad Daulat Pur, Delhi Branch, the previous manager of the branch did not handover the office charge to the plaintiff hence the question of handing over the charge of missing files to the plaintiff does not arise at all.
xii. That the issuance of deduction letter dated 30.08.2016 without notice, without inquiry, without carrying any departmental proceedings, without orders or resolutions, without considering the fact that neither the charge was handed over to the plaintiff nor the loan was granted during his tenure besides being contrary to the rules, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and unjust and in violation of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and infringement of the legal and fundamental rights of the plaintiff and thus the same is liable to be quashed.
xiii. That the defendants are looking after the day to day affairs of the bank being the president, vice president, directors and officials of the bank and have deducted the amount of Rs.
CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 4/20 3,87,064/- in a pre-planned conspiracy only with malafide intention to cause unnecessary and unjust loss to the plaintiff. xiv. That the defendant has deducted the amount of Rs. 3,87,064/-
of the plaintiff without any rhyme and reason and they are liable to pay the same to the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till its realization.
WRITTEN STATEMENT

2. Before the issuance of the summons of the suit, the plaintiff was enquired about the liability of defendant no. 2 to 16 who were initially impleaded in the suit being the office bearers of defendant no. 1 bank however vide order dated 01.04.2017, the defendant no. 2 to 16 were deleted from the array of parties and the summons of the suit were issued only to defendant no. 1, hereinafter referred to as the defendant/defendant bank.

3. The defendant no. 1 filed its written statement challenging the suit of the plaintiff pleading inter-alia as under:-

i. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the same is time barred.
ii. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court and has suppressed the material facts of the case. iii. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not paid the proper Court Fee as per the law. iv. That the plaintiff was recruited as a clerk on 11.10.1973 in the bank and retired on 31.05.2016 and during his service he had CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 5/20 taken charge on 22.10.2007 as manager of Moti Nagar branch and the charge was taken in its entirety from the previous manager.
v. That the plaintiff was entrusted with the entire record of the branch and the plaintiff brought some loan files in the head office of the defendant with recommendation to transfer the said loans in the shadow account as no recovery could be effected in the said files .
vi. That after transfer of the loan amount in shadow account in respect of the loan files, the files remained in the custody of the plaintiff being the branch manager.
vii. That thereafter the branch managers were asked by the management to pursue the recovery in the loan cases of which amount was transferred in the shadow account which also includes the loan cases pertaining to Moti Nagar branch but after expiry of around one year and seven months, the plaintiff apprised the higher authorities of the defendant vide letter dated 01.05.2009 stating therein that certain files are missing and not traceable.
viii. That neither the plaintiff informed the higher authorities in respect of the missing files at the time of taking over the charge of the branch nor pursued the recovery in the said files for which he was duty-bound .
ix. That after reporting about the missing of files, an enquiry officer was appointed to give his findings for the same and the defendant bank had written several letters dated 11.05.2009, CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 6/20

4.06.2009, 24.06.2009, 07.09.2009, 21.10.2009, 13.01.2010 to the plaintiff and other officials to clarify their situation with regard to the missing files, but the plaintiff neither gave the section reply, not cooperated in the matter with the enquiry officer.

x. That the plaintiff in collusion with the loan defaulters or other subordinate officials of the branch has misplaced the above said files with malafide intention to cause loss to the bank and by this act the plaintiff has caused a loss of Rs.14,30,468.65/- as on 31.03.2007 and the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted under section 406/417/419/420/468/470 IPC in addition to other penal sections under criminal law.

xi. That the defendant bank has taken a very lenient view against the plaintiff and has bifurcated the amount between the previous manager and the plaintiff that is the principal amount as on 31.03.2009 and no interest, cost, arbitration cost, loss to the bank or interest after 31.03.2009 has been charged and the penalty imposed upon the plaintiff was after due consideration and enquiry by the board of directors which was minimum penalty imposed upon the plaintiff.

xii. On Merits, the facts pleaded in the plaint have been denied and the facts alleged in the preliminary objections have been reiterated.

REPLICATION

4. The plaintiff filed his replication while denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 7/20 ISSUES

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Court, vide order dated 07.03.2020 has framed the following issues for adjudication:-

1. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against the defendant no. 1? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery alongwith interest as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and B. In Ex. PW-1/A, the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. In his testimony the PW-1 relied upon the following documents:- 
             S. No.       Exhibited as              Nature of Documents
             1.           Ex PW1/1                  Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff
             2.           Ex PW-1/2                 Copy of Relieving Order.
             3.           Ex PW-1/3                 Letter dated 30.08.2016
             4.           Ex PW-1/4                 Legal Notice
             5.           Ex PW-1/5 to              Original Postal Receipts
                          PW-1/24 Colly
7. The PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant and the PE was closed on 15.10.2022.

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 8/20 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE

8. In order to prove its defense, the defendant examined its Assistant General Manager namely Sh. Jitender Singh as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as DW-1/A bearing his signatures as Point A and B.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that alongwith the evidence by way of affidavit, the defendant filed three letters i.e. letter dated 22.07.2007 (Joining Report of the plaintiff at Moti Nagar Branch), letter dated 01.05.2009 (vide which information regarding missing files given to the defendant by the plaintiff) and letter dated 17.07.2009 (vide which Ms. Gurvinder Kaur informed the defendant that she had handed over the charge of Moti Nagar branch to the plaintiff alongwith all the files at the time of handing over of the charge to the plaintiff).

10 Though the defendant exhibited the said documents in his evidence by way of affidavit however since the said documents were not filed by the defendant alongwith its written statement nor any permission or leave of the Court was sought by the defendant to file those documents at the stage of defendant's evidence therefore the said documents were not taken on record by not permitting the defendant to exhibit the same. Surprisingly the said documents were not even put to the PW-1 during his cross-examination through which the defendant could have very well brought the said documents on record.

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 9/20

11. The defendant's witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on difference dates and the defendant closed its evidence on 11.07.2023.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

12. Final arguments were duly advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.

13. I have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleading, documents and the evidence on record carefully. My issue wise finding is an under:-

Issue No. 1
Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against the defendant no. 1? OPP

14. The onus to prove this issue was put upon the plaintiff though it ought to have been on the defendant since one cannot be asked to prove something in negative. Be that as it may, it shall not be out of place to mention here that in the present case the defendant has raised the issue of maintainability of the present suit alleging that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred as per Section 70 and 132 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 however the said issue was decided against the defendant on 07.03.2020 and the suit filed by the plaintiff was held to be maintainable.

15. Once the Court has already held that the suit of the plaintiff to be maintainable then it was the duty of the defendant to have shown and proved on record such facts which would have disentitled the plaintiff to CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 10/20 maintain the present suit. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was the employee of the defendant bank and on his retirement the plaintiff was duly relieved from his services vide letter dated 31.05.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-1/2. Thereafter the defendant carried out the full and final settlement of the dues payable to the plaintiff towards his retirements benefits and thus vide letter dated 30.08.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-1/3, the defendant informed the plaintiff about the deduction of Rs. 3,87,064/- from the total amount which was found/calculated to be payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff, aggrieved with the actions of the defendant in deducting the said amount from his total entitlement, got sent a legal notice to the defendant as well to other officials seeking release of the amount deducted by the defendant.

16. In the considered opinion of this Court, all these facts constitutes cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to initiate a legal action against the defendant seeking recovery of the amount which was deducted by the defendant. Even otherwise, the defendant has not proved anything on record to show that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action in his favor to file the present suit when it is an admitted fact that it was the defendant bank which has deducted the amount of Rs. 3,87,064/- and therefore there exists a valid cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant. Hence this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No. 2

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery alongwith interest as prayed for? OPP CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 11/20

17. In the present case it is an admitted fact that vide letter dated 30.08.2016/Ex. PW-1/3, the defendant bank has deducted an amount of Rs. 3,87,064/- from the total amount which was found due and payable to the plaintiff however the recovery of the same has been challenged by the defendant on a question of law and facts.

18. The first and foremost argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant was that the plaintiff has not sought any declaration challenging the letter dated 30.08.2016/Ex. PW-1/3 and it has been submitted that unless a declaration qua the said letter is sought to set-aside the same, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

19. The argument raised by the defendant appears to be impressive but on a closer scrutiny of the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, the said plea warrants rejection for the simple reason that no such plea has been taken by the defendant in its written statement and the said argument is taken only at the stage of final arguments and since no such plea was taken by the defendant in his written statement therefore no issue was also framed on that count.

20. Assuming that such plea is not required to be raised explicitly and can be raised at the time of final arguments however even then the defendant cannot gain any advantage of the same since it was incumbent upon the defendant to have first led foundation to prove that the action of the defendant was valid in law for deducting the said amount from the total amount due and payable to the plaintiff. If the action of the defendant in deducting the amount was non-est in the eyes of law then there was no CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 12/20 occasion for the plaintiff to have challenged the said action of the defendant by seeking a declaration against the said letter. It is also a matter of record that it is not a case of any void or voidable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for which the plaintiff was required to seek a declaration qua the alleged letter dated 30.08.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-1/3.

21. Now coming to the factual defense as led by the defendant bank against the recovery sought by the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff was careless in managing the files of the loan defaulters and he had misplaced the said files during his tenure as Bank Manager of Moti Nagar Branch. The defendant has categorically taken a stand that an enquiry officer was appointed by the defendant bank and during the enquiry number of letters were sent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not give any sufficient reply nor cooperated in the matter with the enquiry officer.

22. In order to appreciate the aforesaid defense, the testimony of the parties has to be scanned scrupulously.

23. The PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the loan files of defaulters which were missing and recovery could not be made were transferred into the Shadow Account. The PW-1 was specifically asked the following question in his cross-examination:-

Question: Is it correct to suggest that when the loan defaulters account are transferred to Shadow Account, then all the related files are taken to the Head Office?
CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 13/20 Ans. It is incorrect. Voltd. Whenever a defaulter account is transferred to Shadow account, then only the accounts statement is sent to the Head Office.

24. The PW-1 in his further cross-examination denied the suggestion that he had the possession of the files in respect of the loan defaulters. The PW-1 also denied the suggestion that due to missing of loan files, the defendant bank had suffered monetary loss as it could not recover the loan amount however he volunteered that he had no role to play in the missing of loan defaulters account files and the recovery of loan was the duty of Recovery Cell which is a specialized agency created by the bank. The PW-1 categorically denied any enquiry having been conducted against him. He admitted that he had received the notices/letters dated 11.05.2009, 04.06.2009, 24.06.2009, 07.09.2009, 21.10.2009 and 03.01.2010 seeking explanation in respect of missing loan defaulter account files however he deposed that he had suitably replied to the said notices/letters.

25. On the other hand, the DW-1 in his cross-examination conducted on 26.11.2022 has deposed that when a borrower commit default to clear the loan amount then the Branch Manager issues demand notice to the loan defaulter. On being specifically asked, the DW-1 deposed that the Branch Manager does not take any action himself in his personal capacity and the matter is referred to the legal cell of the bank to take appropriate action in accordance with law and thereafter the Registrar Cooperative Society appoints Arbitrator and the Arbitrator after following the established procedure passes the award against the loan defaulter and his surety. The DW-1 further deposed that after passing of the award, the CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 14/20 Arbitrator sent the award to the Assistant Collector/Recovery Cell of the bank for recovery of the loan amount however he again deposed that the Assistant Collector is duly empowered by the Hon'ble LG to execute the award. The DW-1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the Branch Manager has no role to play for the recovery of the loan amount. The DW-1 was then enquired about the passing of the award in respect of 14 loan defaulters and as such the cross-examination of DW-1 was deferred for the production of the record of the arbitral award.

26. The DW-1 was recalled for cross-examination on 25.01.2023 however he failed to bring the arbitral record and deposed that the said record is not traceable. The DW-1 was completely unaware about the factum of initiation of the recovery proceedings against the loan defaulters as well as the records of the same. In his further cross-examination on 25.01.2023, the DW-1 was specifically asked as to whether any enquiry was conducted by the bank against the plaintiff before deducting around Rs. 4 Lacs from the retirement benefits of the plaintiff, to which the DW-1 admitted that no enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff.

27. The cross-examination of DW-1 was further deferred and the DW-1 was asked to produce the records in respect of the deduction of amount made from the retirement benefits of Smt. Gurvinder Kaur who was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff i.e. the Bank Manager posted prior to the plaintiff at Moti Nagar Branch.

28. The DW-1 was then recalled for cross-examination on 18.03.2023 when he produced one letter dated 30.08.2016 i.e. DW-1/PA CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 15/20 addressed to Smt. Gurvinder Kaur and vide the said letter the defendant bank is shown to have deducted an amount of Rs. 2,84,635.65/- from the total amount payable to Smt. Gurvinder Kaur. The DW-1 also placed on record one undated Note Sheet i.e. DW-1/PB vide which the matter was directed to be put up in E.S.C. AGM (Estt.) for considering fixation of liability if any against the erring officials.

29. The Ld. Counsel for defendant bank has contended that due to the fault of the plaintiff in not reporting the missing of the loan defaulter files to the Head Office the defendant bank has suffered losses however in the considered opinion of this Court, the plea so taken by the defendant is not only vague but remained unsubstantiated thus making the action of the defendant in deducting the said amount not tenable in the eyes of law more particularly when it has been admitted by the DW-1 that no enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff by the defendant bank. It is also pertinent to note here that though the defendant bank has alleged to have sent various letters to the plaintiff seeking explanation on the missing files i.e. letters dated 11.05.2009, 04.06.2009, 24.06.2009, 07.09.2009, 21.10.2009 and 03.01.2010 however not even a single letter has been placed on record by the defendant and thus it clearly shows that the defendant bank has withheld the best evidence which was available with them in respect of the communication between the plaintiff and the defendant qua the missing of the loan files.

30. Though a perusal of the Note Sheet i.e. Ex. DW-1/PB shows that the matter was put up before the higher authorities for taking action against the erring officials however nothing has been proved on record by CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 16/20 the defendant as to what all steps were taken or approved by the board before coming to the conclusion to deduct a particular amount from the retirement benefits of the plaintiff nor it has been shown or proved on record as to how the said figure (Rs. 3,87,064/-) has been reached at. The defendant bank has also not produced any other witness who has signed and approved the same so as to prove the said Note Sheet in accordance with law and therefore no advantage can be derived by the defendant on the strength of the said document.

31. At this stage it is significant to note that the defense which was taken by the defendant bank in its written statement, i.e. an enquiry officer was appointed but the plaintiff did not co-operate with the enquiry officer, however the said facts are conspicuously missing in the evidence which was filed by the defendant bank by way of affidavit and thus it clearly shows that the defendant bank has taken the defense of appointment of enquiry officer and non-cooperation by the plaintiff in vaccum without any iota of truth in the same in as much as it has also come on record that no enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff.

32. The defendant bank being a public institution and an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is expected to follow due process of law before awarding any kind of punishment to its employees and therefore all the actions done by the defendant bank has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the defendant bank cannot be expected to act in an arbitrary manner. It is also significant to take note of the fact that the plaintiff got superannuated from his services on 31.05.2016 vide Ex. PW-1/2 and CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 17/20 nothing has been proved on record by the defendant that at the time of the retirement of the plaintiff any enquiry was pending against him and rather the said letter signifies that the plaintiff was allowed to be superannuated without any objection or protest. The defendant has also not placed on record even a single document to show that any notice was ever given to the plaintiff regarding missing of loan files during his tenure as a Branch Manager. In the present case since it has been duly proved on record that no enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff therefore there was no occasion for the defendant bank to have punished the plaintiff by deducting the amount of Rs. 3,87,064/- from the total amount which was payable to the plaintiff. This issue is thus decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

33. The plaintiff, in his suit, has sought recovery of Rs. 4,48,654/- comprising of Rs. 3,87,064/- (amount deducted by the defendant vide Ex. PW-1/3) and Rs. 61,590/- towards interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of deduction till the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has further prayed for payment of pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum however the plaintiff has failed to show any agreement between the parties which entitles the plaintiff to claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Even otherwise this Court is of the opinion that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is on the excessive side.

34. Section 34 of CPC provides for grant of interest pendente-lite at any rate not exceeding 6% and future interest at any rate not exceeding contractual rate and if there is no contractual rate than not exceeding the rate at which nationalized banks advance loan.

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 18/20

35. Thus keeping in mind the said provision, interest of justice would be served if plaintiff is granted simple interest @ 6% per annum towards the pre-litigation period as well as for the pendente-lite period i.e. from 30.08.2016 till the passing of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum towards future interest i.e. from the date of the passing of the decree till its actual realization.

36. In view of the discussion herein above, this Court passes the following Final Relief:-

1. A Decree of Rs. 3,87,064/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Sixty Four only) is passed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
2. The Plaintiff is also held entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on the decreetal amount towards the pre-litigation period as well as for the pendente-lite period i.e. from 30.08.2016 till the passing of the decree.
3. The Plaintiff shall also be entitled to future interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple interest on the decreetal amount from the date of passing of the decree till its actual realization.
4. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs.

37. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

38. File be sent back to the concerned court and be consigned to record room after due compliance.

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 19/20 Announced in the Open Court 16.09.2023 (Judgment contains 20 pages and each page is signed by me) (Ajay Gulati-II) ADJ-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Presently Posted As ASJ (SC-POCSO)-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 16.09.2023 Note: This judgment was reserved by the undersigned while posted as ADJ-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and the same has now been pronounced by the undersigned, as per the directions contained in the Order No. 35/G-I/Gaz.IA/DHC/2023 dated 29.08.2023.

CS No. 652/2017 Dharamvir Rana vs Delhi State Co­operative Bank Ltd. Page No 20/20