Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

M/S True Link Finance Ltd vs Smt. Harmeet Kaur on 29 August, 2022

                        IN THE COURT OF SWATI GUPTA,
               ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ARC­CUM­CCJ,
            NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

                                                                                    CS No. 730/2020
        M/s True Link Finance Ltd.
        Reg. Office: D­44, Mohan Singh Market,
        Sector­6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi­110022.                                              ..... Plaintiff

                  VERSUS

        Smt. Harmeet Kaur
        W/o Sh.Rajender Singh
        H. No.B9 Naba House
        Safdar Hashmi Marg
        New Delhi­110001.
        Alternate Address:­
        Smt. Harmeet Kaur
        W/o Sh.Rajender Singh
        (Receptionist)
        O/o The Resident Commissioner
        (Govt. of Punjab)
        Naba House, Safdar Hashmi Marg
        New Delhi­110001.
        Previous Resident Address:­
        (Not for Service)
        Smt. Harmeet Kaur
        W/o Sh.Rajender Singh
        H. No.552, Sector­5
        R.K.Puram, New Delhi­110022.                                                   ..... Defendant

                       CIVIL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,05,482/­

                  Date of institution                                :           03.11.2020
                  Date for final argument                            :           29.08.2022
                  Date of judgment                                   :           29.08.2022
                  Final judgment                                     :           Suit Decreed.



CS No. 730/2020                M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Smt. Harmeet Kaur               Page 1 of 4
                                      EX­PARTE JUDGMENT

1.

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,05,482(Rs.One Lac Five Thousand Four Hundred & Eighty Two Only) alongwith interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 2.5% per month alongwith costs.

Brief facts

2. Brief facts of the present case, as averred in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is a Limited NBF company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant approached the plaintiff company on 05.03.2019 for reconstituted finance/loan facility of a sum of Rs.80,000/­. It is further alleged that the said loan was repayable by the defendant in 36 equal monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.3820/­ (each), payable first on 05.04.2019 and thereafter, the remaining each payable on 5 th of each following consecutive English calendar months and last installment was payable on 05.03.2022. It is further stated that in case of any delayed payment, overdue interest @ 2.5% per month was agreed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff company.

3. It is further the case of the plaintiff company that the defendant executed various documents like Reconstituted Loan Agreement, Reconstituted cum Loan Proposal and Promissory note etc. all dated 05.03.2019. It is stated by the plaintiff company that defendant made payment of Rs.36,000/­ only and failed to adhere to financial discipline and defaulted in making the payment of EMIs as per schedule. Accordingly, outstanding balance payable by the defendant is Rs.1,05,482/­ including interest till 14.10.2020. It is further stated that the defendant failed to clear the liability despite issuance of demand notice dated 29.08.2020. With these facts, the plaintiff company has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,05,482/­ alongwith interest thereon @ 2.5% per month.

CS No. 730/2020 M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Smt. Harmeet Kaur Page 2 of 4

Trial and Evidence

4. Summons were issued to the defendant. Despite due service of summons, defendant Smt. Harmeet Kaur did not file any written statement within the statutory period and accordingly, the defence of the defendant was struck of and she was proceeded ex­parte vide order dated 19.04.2022.

5. In ex­parte evidence, the plaintiff company examined Sh.R.P.Mishra, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company as PW­1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW­1/1 and relied upon the documents from Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/10, Mark A,Mark A1 and Mark B.

6. No other witness was examined in PE.

Arguments and Relief

7. I have heard the ex­parte final arguments advanced by Ld. Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff company and carefully perused the record.

8. In the present case, as noted above, vide order dated 19.04.2022, the defendant Smt. Harmeet Kaur was proceeded ex­parte and her defence was struck of for not filing the written statement. The plaintiff has inter alia proved on record its Incorporation (Mark A1); RBI Certificate (Ex.PW1/3); resolution passed by Board of Directors dated 20.12.2017 ( Ex.PW1/4); Original Introductory Loan cum Hypothecation Proposal Form dated 05.03.2019 ( Ex.PW1/5); Original Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 05.03.2019 (Ex­PW1/6); Original promissory note dated 05.03.2019 ( Ex­PW1/7). Legal notice issued to the defendant and postal receipts are also proved as Ex­PW1/8 and Ex­PW1/9 respectively. The said evidence of PW1 stands unrebutted / unchallenged, as PW1 was not cross­examined by the said defendant. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of AR of the plaintiff company / PW­1 recorded on oath in Court. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, documents exhibited/tendered in CS No. 730/2020 M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Smt. Harmeet Kaur Page 3 of 4 evidence by PW1 and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff company has been able to prove its case against defendant on preponderance of probabilities.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff company and against defendant Smt.Harmeet Kaur. The plaintiff company is held entitled for the decreetal amount of Rs.1,05,482/­. The plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 2.5% pm. However, it is settled law that pendentelite and future interest are matters of discretion and considering that the interest at the rate of 2.5% pm is onerous and penal in nature, it is not considered equitable to grant such high rate of interest. Accordingly, simple interest at the rate of 6 % per annum is considered just and equitable in the present case. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed against the defendant. Defendant is liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,05,482/­ to the plaintiff alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.

10. Deficient court­fees, if any, be filed within 10 days from today and decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

11. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Court                                          (SWATI GUPTA)
today i.e. on 29.08.2022.                                        ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC
                                                                  NEW DELHI :29.08.2022




CS No. 730/2020                M/s True Link Finance Ltd Vs. Smt. Harmeet Kaur    Page 4 of 4