Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India A Body Corporate ... vs Rajesh Kumar on 9 February, 2024
CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY, CIVIL
JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, DELHI
Case No. : CS SCJ 206/2023
CNR No. : DLST03-000894-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Branch At:
A-15, Ground Floor, PPB, Hauz Khas,
Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016. .............Plaintiff
Versus
SH. RAJESH KUMAR
S/o Thawar Singh
R/o Village Meghot Binja,
PO-N Chaudhary,
Tehsil Narnaul,
Mahendergarh, Haryana-123023. .........Defendant
****
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,90,658/- (RUPEES TWO LAKHS NINETY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT ONLY) **** Date of Institution of suit : 17.03.2023 Date of Reserving of Judgment : 09.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 09.02.2024 **** EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.2,90,658/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest. The suit was initially filed u/o SWAYAM Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 TRIPATHY 16:43:24 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 1 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR 37 CPC, however, the same was converted into an ordinary suit vide order dated 24.05.2023.
PLAINT
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. That the present suit is filed through Authorized representative who is well conversant with the facts of the case.
3. That, the defendant approached the Plaintiff Bank and requested for the grant of Personal Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- under SBI Xpress Credit Scheme vide application dated 17.11.2017. The proposal of the defendant was accepted and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned in the account of the defendant. The defendant agreed to repay the credit facility with fixed interest of 13% per annum, and in 60 EMIs of Rs.11,377/- each. After agreeing with all the terms and conditions of sanction, the defendant executed personal loan agreement dated 17.11.2017.
4. That after availing the credit facility, defendant failed to repay the loan as per terms of sanction and failed to adhere to the banking norms and financial discipline. The defendant was given several opportunities to regularize his account, however, he failed to do so in spite of various promises. Subsequently, his account was declared as NPA on 14.09.2021.
5. That the plaintiff sent a legal demand notice dated 23.11.2021 and a legal demand-cum-recall notice dated 16.03.2022 to the defendant. However, despite service, defendant neither replied Digitally signed SWAYAM by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 16:43:31 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 2 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR nor paid the outstanding dues. Hence, the present suit.
6. That the plaintiff bank maintained the loan account of the defendant as per banking norms and in the regular course of business which reflects an outstanding of Rs.2,90,658/- as on 17.01.2023.
APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANTS
7. After institution of the suit, summons were issued to the defendant which was received back served. However, despite service, defendant failed to appear. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.01.2024.
EXPARTE EVIDENCE
8. Plaintiff Bank, in support of its case, has placed on record affidavit of AR, namely, Ms. Priyanka Kanojia, in evidence vide Ex. PW1/A and she relied upon the following documents:
Sl. No. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/1 Copy of the Gazette Notification dated 27.03.1987.
2. Ex.PW1/2 Loan Application dated 17.11.2017.
(Colly)
3. Ex.PW1/3 Sanction letter dated 17.11.2017.
4. Ex.PW1/4 Arrangement letter dated 17.11.2017.
5. Ex. PW1/5 Personal Loan agreement dated 17.11.2017.
6. Ex. PW1/6 Copy of Legal demand notice dated (Colly) 23.11.2021 alongwith postal receipt and tracking report.
SWAYAM Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 16:43:39 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 3 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR
7. Ex. PW1/7 Copy of legal demand-cum-recall (Colly) notice dated 16.03.2022 alongwith postal receipt and tracking report.
8. Ex. PW1/8 Copy of statement of account (Colly) alongwith Certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act.
9. The said witness was duly examined-in-chief. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed vide order dated 09.02.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10.I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff who argued as per the pleadings contained in the plaint and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.
DECISION AND REASONING THEREOF
11.PW1, in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, reiterated the version of the plaint and thereby supported the pleadings made in the plaint. PW1 further proved loan documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5 and copy of statement of account coupled with Certificate u/s 2A(b) of Banker's Book Evidence Act Ex.PW1/8. Section 4 of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891, lays down that a certified copy of any entry in the banker's book, shall in all proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case. Therefore, entries of statement SWAYAM Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 TRIPATHY 16:43:52 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 4 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR of account Ex.PW1/8 filed by the plaintiff bank in support of the claim can be considered to be prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff. Reference can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Eco Lab I.MC.N v. Eco Labs Ltd., 2011(185) DLT 664, wherein it was held that if the defendant has failed to cross-examine the plaintiff, the evidence of plaintiff is to be presumed to be correct.
12.The legal demand notice dated 23.11.2021 and 16.03.2022 sent to the defendant alongwith postal receipt Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 have also been proved by the plaintiff. The contents of the legal notice can be deemed to be admitted by the defendant. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled Abdul Gaffar v. DDA, 2001 RLR 249. In any case, since the defendant defaulted in appearance despite being fully aware of the pendency of the suit, it can be safely presumed that the defendant has no defence to offer.
13.It has been further submitted that the plaintiff has branch office within the jurisdiction of this court where the defendant approached for sanction of loan. Therefore, from the above pleadings and documents placed on record, it has transpired that the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter.
14.The suit of the plaintiff is well within the limitation period of 3 Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 TRIPATHY 16:44:04 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 5 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR years from the date of last payment i.e. 19.07.2021, the suit being filed on 17.03.2023.
15.Since the defendant chose not to appear and contest the suit despite being served, the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed in support of the plaint, have gone unchallenged. The testimony of PW1 who proved the documents have also gone unrebutted. As such, the court has no reason to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the claim of the plaintiff as averred in the instant suit stands established according to preponderance of probability in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of sum of Rs. 2,90,658/- from the defendant as shown as outstanding in the statement of account Ex.PW1/8 (Colly).
16.The plaintiff has also sought interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the loan amount from date of filing till its realization. It is pertinent to mention that the transaction entered into between the parties was a commercial transaction. It is well settled that in a commercial transaction by the public financial institutions the contractual rate of interest is the rule and any departure is a rare exception. Moreover, Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is a bar to reopening by the court, the contractual rate of interest entered into between the commercial banks and its debtor, if the interest charged by the bank is consistent with the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is also to be noted that under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court in a money decree may award Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 TRIPATHY 16:45:16 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 6 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR interest exceeding six per cent, on a commercial transaction but not beyond the contractual rate. Hence, the contractual rate of interest i.e. 13% p.a. stands accordingly allowed.
RELIEF
17.Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed alongwith costs of the suit. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs.2,90,658/- alongwith interest at the rate of 13% per annum from date of filing of the suit till its realization.
18.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA
SIDDHA TRIPATHY
Date:
TRIPATHY 2024.02.09
16:45:30 +0530
Announced in the open court (Swayam Siddha Tripathy)
on 09.02.2024 Civil Judge-02(South)
(This judgment contains 07 pages Saket Courts, New Delhi
and each page has been signed by me.) 09.02.2024
(Swayam Siddha Tripathy),
Civil Judge-02(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
09.02.2024 (Page 7 of 7)