Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs M/S Ram Electricals on 16 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Aman Kumar Sharma, DJS.
Civil Suit No: 1466/22
State Bank of India,
A body corporate duly constituted under the
State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its head
office at State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama
Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-
400021 and amongst others one of its branches
office at Small Mediam Enterprises City
Credit Centre (SMECCC), 461, Main Road,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032
...Plaintiff
Versus
1.M/s Ram Electricals, Through its proprietor Mr. Chetan Prakash Verma S/o Sh. Dharm Veer Varma Shop no. 159, Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051
2. Mr. Chetan Prakash Verma S/o Sh. Dharm Veer Varma Shop no. 159, Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051 Also at: R/o 303, Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-110051 ...Defendants SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.2,46,831/-(RUPEES TWO LAKH FORTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY ONE ONLY) ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12.15% PER ANNUM DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.12.2022 DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 02.08.2023 DATE OF DECISION : 16.08.2023 C.S. no. 1466/22 State Bank Of India Vs M/S Ram Electricals 1 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff bank has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of (a) Rs.2,46,831/-(Rupees Two Lakh Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty One Only) along with pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 12.15% per annum, (b) penal interest @ 2% from its realization and (c) cost of the suit.
2 The case of the plaintiff bank as discernible from the plaint of this suit and the documents filed alongwith is that the plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfers of Undertakings) Act, 1970; that the present suit has been filed through Sh. Ankit Bansal, Manager, who is competent to sign, verify and institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank as per the regulations 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulation, 1955, framed by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 50(3) of State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the prior approval of Government of India read with notification published in the Gazette including notification dated 02.05.1987; that on 07.02.2018, the defendant no. 2 being the proprietor of the defendant no. 1 had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of a cash credit facility under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna (hereinafter Mudra Scheme) for the purpose of working capital requirement for his business; that upon consideration of the request made by the defendant no. 2, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the defendant no. 2 vide sanctioned letter dated 06.02.2018 under the Mudra Scheme; that in consideration of the aforesaid loan, the defendant no. 2 had executed documents viz. letter of arrangement dated 07.02.2018 and agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 07.02.2018 in favour of the plaintiff bank; that the defendant no. 2 had approached the plaintiff bank for renewal of the aforesaid cash credit facility and had further requested the plaintiff bank to convert the existing CC limit into Drop Line OD limit; that acceding to the request of the defendant no. 2, the plaintiff bank had converted the existing CC limit into Drop Line OD limit of Rs.2,00,000/- under loan account no. 37544737871 on terms and C.S. no. 1466/22 State Bank Of India Vs M/S Ram Electricals 2 conditions stipulated in the arrangement letter dated 07.10.2019 with interest @ 10.75% per annum calculated on the basis of the floating rate of interest with monthly rests; that the defendant no. 2 had executed letter of arrangement and the letter of hypothecation of stocks and debts both dated 07.10.2019; that on account of consecutive defaults in repayment, account of the defendant no. 2 was declared NPA on 28.11.2020; that the defendant no. 2 had approached the plaintiff bank on 31.12.2020 and had executed a revival letter/acknowledgement of the outstanding debts in favour of the plaintiff bank on 31.12.2020; that the defendant no. 2 had paid the last installment amounting to Rs.9,500/- in respect of the aforesaid loan account on 12.01.2022; that a legal demand notice dated 22.11.2022 was sent to the defendants by the plaintiff bank calling upon the defendants to pay the outstanding an amount of Rs.2,46,831/- lying unpaid in respect of the loan account of the defendants; that as per statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank for the period 27.08.2020 to 19.11.2020 16.02.2018 to 01.07.2021, an amount of Rs.1,74,581.33/- along with accrued debit interest and penalti cumulative amounting to Rs.59,228/- is outstanding as on 19.11.2022 against the defendants; that additional interest payable at monthly rest in respect of the Drop Line OD loan account no. 37544737871 amounting to Rs.12,992/- is also recoverable from the defendant; that despite repeated reminders, the defendants have not paid the dues of the plaintiff bank; that aggrieved by the actions of the defendants, the present suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,46,831/- has been filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants.
3. A perusal of the Court file reveals that upon filing of this suit, the service of summons through publication of this suit were ordered to be issued qua the defendants by this court on 22.03.2023; that as per the order dated 24.05.2023 of this court, the defendants were served through publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" on 18.04.2023; that on account of failure of the defendants to appear in this Court, till 24.05.2023, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte and that ultimately, the ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on 20.07.2023.
C.S. no. 1466/22 State Bank Of India Vs M/S Ram Electricals 3
4. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Praveen Kumar Mishra, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff on 02.08.2023. On the said date, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, AR of the plaintiff Bank, Sh. Ankit Bansal and as such, the plaintiff should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
5. After hearing the Ld. Advocate and perusing the record of the Court file, I find that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation against the defendants as the defendant no. 2 had acknowledged his libility to repay the loan amount vide written acknowledgement dated 31.12.2020 which is within three years from the date of grant of loan by the plaintiff bank to the defendant on 06.02.2018, accordingly, a fresh period of limitation is deemed to have commenced in respect of the loan granted to the defendant in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on 31.12.2022 and the present suit have been filed on 15.12.2022 is within the period of limitation of three years counting from 31.12.2020.
6. In the present case, the defendants have not tendered their appearance despite duly served with the summons on 18.04.2023. Since the defendants have chosen not to file any written statement and nor challenged the suit of the plaintiff, the evidence led by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted, however, at the same time the court has to scrutiny the case of the plaintiff bank on the basis of the evidence led by AR of the plaintiff.
7. In respect of the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff, PW1, Sh. Ankit Bansal, AR of the plaintiff Bank during his testimony has deposed in line with the pleadings made in the plaint of this suit and tendered in evidence, the authority letter, SBI General Regulations, 1955 & Gazette notification, Ex.PW1/1(Colly)(OSR); Loan application, aadhar card, pan card, laon appraisal memorandum 04.01.2018 & Sanction Letter dated 06.02.2018, Ex.PW1/2(Colly); letter of arrangement dated 07.02.2018, executed by C.S. no. 1466/22 State Bank Of India Vs M/S Ram Electricals 4 defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no. 1, Ex.PW1/3; agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 07.02.2018, executed by defendant no. 2 on behalf of the defendant no. 1, Ex.PW1/4; letter of arrangement dated 07.10.2019 and certificate to be signed by the borrower (Annexure I) dated 07.10.2019 executed by defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no. 1, Ex.PW1/5(Colly); revival letter dated 31.12.2020 and acknowledgment of debt executed by defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant no. 1, Ex.PW1/6(Colly); legal notice dated 22.11.2022 and postal receipts, Ex.PW1/7(Colly) and statement of account & certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW1/8(Colly).
8. The case of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,46,831/- is based upon the statement of account for the period 27.08.2020 to 19.11.2020 and 16.02.2018 to 01.07.2021, Ex.PW1/8(Colly) maintained by the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of business which reflects that an amount of Rs.2,46,831/- is outstanding against the defendants. The statement of account, Ex.PW1/8(Colly) is supported by certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW1/8(Colly). In support of the factum of the loan granted by the plaintiff bank to the defendant no. 2, the plaintiff bank has placed on record documents viz. confirmation letter dated 06.02.2018, Ex.PW1/2(Colly) which reflects the sanction of the loan in favour of the defendants vide opening of a loan account no. 37544737871, part of Ex.PW1/2(Colly). The defendants are stated to have executed a letter of arrangement dated 07.02.2018, executed and agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 07.02.2018, executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff bank which are , Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. AT the time of conversion of the loan account of the defendants into Drop Line OD limit of Rs.2,00,000/- under loan account no. 37544737871, the defendant no. 2 is stated to have executed a letter of arrangement and a certificate to be signed by the borrower (Annexure I) both dated 07.10.2019 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff bank which are Ex.PW1/5(Colly). On the basis of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, this court is of the view that the plaintiff bank has proved its case to the standard of preponderance of probabilities and the defendant no. 2 being the proprietor of the defendant no. 1 which does not possess a C.S. no. 1466/22 State Bank Of India Vs M/S Ram Electricals 5 distinct legal entity of its own apart from its proprietor, accordingly, the defendant no. 2 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,46,831/- to the plaintiff bank within a period of two months.
9. With respect to quantum of interest, the plaintiff has sought pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 12.15% per annum. In my view, the ends of justice would be met, if the plaintiff is granted pendente-lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit until the date of its realization.
10. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2 for a sum of Rs.2,46,831/-(Rupees Two Lakh Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty One Only) along with cost and pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit until the date of its realization.
11. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (Aman Kumar Sharma)
today on 16th August, 2023 CJ-02/Shahdara District
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
C.S. no. 1466/22 State Bank Of India Vs M/S Ram Electricals 6