Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs Ms. Sonali Gupta on 15 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF
SH. PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) NO. 320/2021
CNR NO. DLST01-007436-2021
UNION BANK OF INDIA
(EW. CORPORATION BANK)
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
UNION BANK BHAWAN,
VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI-21, MAHARASHTRA AND
BRANCH OFFICE AT :
D-66, CHHATTARPUR ENCLAVE
60 FEET ROAD, NEW DELHI .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MS. SONALI GUPTA
PROPRIETOR OF M/S. S.G. BUSINESS CORPORATION
PLOT NO. 103, KHASRA NO.162,
VILLAGE RAJPUR KHURD,
NEW DELHI-110068
ALSO AT : H.NO. 396, GALI NO. D-24,
CHHATTARPUR PAHARI, CHHATTARPUR,
NEW DELHI-110074 .....DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 27.09.2021
Reserved for judgment : 15.12.2022
Date of Judgment : 15.12.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.10,12,688/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight only) along with pendente CS (Comm) No. 320/2021 Union Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sonali Gupta Page No.: 6 of 6 lite and future interest.
2. Brief facts, according to the plaintiff bank, are that it is a body corporate under the banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 having its head office at Union Bank Bhawan, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 and branch office at D-66, Ground Floor, Chhattarpur Enclave, 60 Feet Road, New Delhi-110074 and Mr. Satish Kumar Dixit, Branch Head of Chhattarpur branch, was duly authorized, empowered and competent to sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for granting Cash Credit (CC) facility for smooth running and expansion of her business vide loan application dated 15.12.2015 and the plaintiff bank considered the said request of the defendant and sanctioned the facility vide CSI dated 04.01.2016 to the tune of Rs.9,90,000/-. It is submitted that the defendant had agreed to repay the aforesaid loan amount alongwith floating rate of interest @ 9.65% p.a. compounded monthly and it was also agreed that in case of default in payment equated monthly installments on the due date penal interest @ 2% p.a. shall be charged over the normal rate of interest. It is submitted that the defendant had agreed with the terms and conditions and acknowledged/signed the CSI dated 04.01.2016 and also executed various documents i.e. Demand Promissory Note, Take DPN dated 04.01.2016, Letter of Undertaking & declaration from the borrower dated 04.01.2016, Common Deed of Hypothecation dated 04.01.2016, Request for overdraft facilities/cash credit limit dated 04.01.2016, Letter of Proprietorship dated 04.01.2016 and acknowledgement of debt CS (Comm) No. 320/2021 Union Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sonali Gupta Page No.: 6 of 6 dated 25.10.2018. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid documents executed and securities created, the plaintiff bank disbursed the said loan to the defendant in terms of the aforesaid loan agreements. It is submitted that in discharge of her liability towards the said loan facility, the defendant was under obligation for repayment of the said loan amount but the defendant has failed to upkeep the financial discipline and the said loan account of defendant was classified as NPA as per RBI prudential norms. It is further submitted that the defendant became irregular in payments of installments and hence the said facility was recalled and the Demand Notice dated 23.02.2019 was served upon the defendant to make the payment of entire outstanding amount of Rs.10,26,478/- due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff bank within seven days from receipt of the legal notice but the defendant did not pay any heed to the same. She neither raised any objections nor liquidated the dues of the plaintiff bank. According to the plaintiff, as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,12,688/- towards principal, interest, penal interest and other charges as on 30.09.2019.
4. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant but same were received back unserved and as per process server's reprot dated 22.03.2022, the defendant had vacated her given address and her present whereabouts were not known. As the defendant could not be served through ordinary process, the plaintiff's application for substituted service U/o 5 Rule 20 CPC was allowed vide proceedings dated 23.07.2022 whereafter, the defendant was served by way of substituted service through publication in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated CS (Comm) No. 320/2021 Union Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sonali Gupta Page No.: 6 of 6 09.10.2022. However, the defendant did not care to appear despite substituted service and hence the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide proceedings dated 15.11.2022.
5. The plaintiff has examined only one witness PW-1, Sh. Shashank Pandey, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank, who tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.PW1/A and relied upon following documents:-
1) Ex.PW1/1(OSR): Copy of Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2014;
2) Ex.PW1/2 : Loan Application Form dated 15.12.2015;
3) Ex.PW1/3 : Credit Sanction Intimation dated 04.01.2016;
4) Ex.PW1/4 : Demand Promissory Note dated 04.01.2016;
5) Ex.PW1/5 : Take DPN dated 04.01.2016;
6) Ex.PW1/6 : Letter of Undertaking & Declaration from the
borrower dated 04.01.2016;
7) Ex.PW1/7 : Common Deed of Hypothecation dated
04.01.2016;
8) Ex.PW1/8 : Request for overdraft facilities/cash credit
limit dated 04.01.2016;
9) Ex.PW1/9 : Letter of Proprietorship dated 04.01.2016;
10) Ex.PW1/10 : Acknowledgement of debt dated 25.10.2018;
11) Ex.PW1/11 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 23.02.2019 (colly) alongwith postal receipts;
12) Ex.PW1/12 : Statement of account from 01.01.2018 to 30.09.2019;
13) Ex.PW1/13 : Certificate U/s 2A(b) of Bankers Books Evidence Act.
6. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully perused the record.
7. The testimony of PW-1, Sh. Shashank Pandey along with documents proved on record have remained unrebutted and unchallenged in absence of any cross examination by the defendant and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the PW-1 and the documents proved by him. The Loan Application Form dated 15.12.2015, Ex.PW1/2; Credit Sanction Intimation dated 04.01.2016, Ex.PW1/3; Demand Promissory Note CS (Comm) No. 320/2021 Union Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sonali Gupta Page No.: 6 of 6 dated 04.01.2016, Ex.PW1/4; Letter of Undertaking & Declaration of the defendant dated 04.01.2016, Ex.PW1/6; Common Deed of Hypothecation dated 04.01.2016, Ex.PW1/7; Request for overdraft facilities/cash credit limit dated 04.01.2016, Ex.PW1/8, Letter of Proprietorship dated 04.01.2016, Ex.PW1/9; Acknowledgement of debt dated 25.10.2018 Ex.PW1/10; Office copy of Legal Notice dated 23.02.2019 alongwith postal receipts, Ex.PW1/11 (colly) and Statement of account from 01.01.2018 to 30.09.2019, Ex.PW1/12 have been duly proved on record by the plaintiff. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence proved on record, this court is satisfied that the plaintiff has proved its case in respect of the due amount Rs.10,12,688/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight only) on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same. Further, the suit is well within limitation.
8. In view of forgoing discussion and unchallenged testimony of PW-1 and evidence brought on record, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for a total amount of Rs.10,12,688/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight only) in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 9.65% p.a. plus penal interest @ 2% p.a. on the suit amount but in the considered opinion of this Court and in view of the prevailing banking rates and pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the plaintiff is awarded pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. on the suit amount from the date of institution till its realization.
9. The plaintiff has also claimed the costs of the suit. Keeping in view Section 35 and 35A of CPC and particularly when the CS (Comm) No. 320/2021 Union Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sonali Gupta Page No.: 6 of 6 defendant has not contested the claims of the plaintiff and is himself responsible for the litigation, he is held to be liable to bear the costs to the extent of court fees etc. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for the costs of litigation. The advocate fee is assessed to be Rs.15,000/- only and same is hereby awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Cost of the suit i.e. court fee etc. are also awarded in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
10. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed compliance. PREM by PREM KUMAR KUMAR BARTHWAL Announced in the open Court BARTHWAL Date:
2022.12.15 Dated : 15th December, 2022 19:11:40 +0530 (Prem Kumar Barthwal) District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01, South District/Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS (Comm) No. 320/2021 Union Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sonali Gupta Page No.: 6 of 6