Bangalore District Court
Bank Of Baroda vs Sri.Asif Khan.C.M on 30 July, 2016
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU. (SCCH.18)
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL SENIOR JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This 30th day of July 2016
S.C.No.1374/2015
PLAINTIFF:
Bank of Baroda,
A Body Corporate established under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office
at Mandvi, Baroda, and one of its Branches at
Bangalore
H.Siddaiah Road Brant, at No.6,
H.Siddaiah Road, Banglaore-560 002,
Represented herein by one of its Principal
Officer Viz., Chief Manager of the
H.Siddaiah Road Branch
Sri.Vidyadhara Krishna
(By Pleader Sri.MAK)
2 SC. No.1374/2015
SCCH-18
-Vs-
DEFENDANT:
1. Sri.Asif Khan.C.M.,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o.Srui.Munavar Khan.C.K.,
Metro Ford,
Hesarahatta Main Road, Bangalore.
Also at:
Residing at Mallige Kempanna Building,
4th Cross, 2nd Floor,
KHB Colony, Gandhinagar,
Yelahanka, Banglaore-560 064.
2. Sri.Satya Prakash Gowda,
Aged about 26 years,
M/s. Prerana Motors Pvt.Ltd.,
No.11, 5th Cross, Kalasipalyam,
New Extension, Bangalore-560002.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 04-12-2015
Nature of the suit (suit on
Pronote, suit for Declaration
and possession Suit for
Injunction, etc.) Recovery of money.
3 SC. No.1374/2015
SCCH-18
Date of the commencement of
Recording of the evidence: 21-07-2016
Date on which the Judgment was
Pronounced: 30-07-2016
Year/s Months Day/s
Total duration: - 7 26
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA)
III ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE,
& XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU.
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff's bank has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.45,491/- with future interest and cost.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
The contention of the Plaintiff is that, the defendant No.1 & 2 have approached the plaintiff bank and requested to grant for 4 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 persona loan of Rs.65,000/-to the defendant No.1. Further at that time, the defendant No.2 has agreed to stood as a guarantor to the said loan. On the request of the defendants, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.65,000/- on 27-02-2007. On the same day, the defendant No.1 & 2 have executed the necessary documents in favour of the Plaintiff bank. Further the first defendant has undertaken to repay the above said entire loan amount with interest at the rate of 11.00% P.A. in 47 monthly installments at Rs.1,837/-p.m. After availing the said loan facility, the defendants have paid sum installements as agreed by them and thereafter, they have failed to repay the loan due amount as agreed by them. Then the plaintiff bank has requested the defendants to repay the loan due amount, then on 13-12-2009 the defendant No.1 has executed the letter of acknowledgment of debt by admitting the due and thereafter he has paid some installments and thereafter 5 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 he has failed to pay the due amount as agreed by him. Then again the plaintiff bank has requested the defendants to pay the loan due amount, then the defendant No.1 & 2 have executed the letter of acknowledgement dated 05-12-2012 by admitting the loan due amount. Thereafter the defendant No.1 has paid some amount to the plaintiff bank and thereafter he has failed to pay the remaining balance amount. Hence, on 24-11-2015, the Plaintiff bank has issued the legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.45,491/-
with interest. In spite of service of notice, the defendants have not paid the outstanding amount.
3. By alleging the above said cause of action, the Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank has filed this suit against the defendant.
4. After registration of the suit, the suit summons were issued to the defendants through court and RPAD, but the said 6 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 summons returned unserved. Thereafter by obtaining permission from this court, the suit summons were issued to the defendants by way of paper publication and in spite of publication, the defendants have not appeared before the court. Accordingly, they were placed exparte.
5. In order to prove the case, the Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to P-14.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. Looking to the contents of plaint and on perusal of the documents, the following short points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim amount from the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the future interest as sought for?
3. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?7 SC. No.1374/2015
SCCH-18
8. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 to 3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. POINT NO.1 to 3: All these points are inter- connected with each other. Hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, all these points are taken together for common consideration.
10. On perusal of the evidence on record, it reveals that, in this case the PW-1 is the Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank. Further the Ex-P-1 is the loan sanction letter, Ex-P-2 is the promissory note, Ex-P-3 is the letter of installment with acceleration clause, Ex-P-4 is the declaration of undertaking, Ex-P-5 is the authority letter, Ex-P-6 is the Guarantee agreement, Ex-P-7 & 8 are the letter of acknowledgment of 8 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 Debt, Ex-P-9 is copy of legal notice, Ex-P-10 is the postal receipt, Ex-P-11 to 14 are the returned postal covers and Ex.P.11
(a) to 14 (a) are the copy of legal notice.
11. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW-1. On perusal of evidence of PW-1, it reveals that, the PW-1 is the Chief Manager of plaintiff bank has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of plaint. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 14. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P-1 to 6, it reveals that, as per the request of the defendants, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan to the defendants. Considering the above facts and also on perusal of evidence of Pw-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff bank has proved the transaction taken place between it and the defendants as contended in the plaint. Further on perusal of copy of account 9 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 extract (unmarked), it reveals that, after receiving the loan amount, the defendants have paid some installments to the loan account as agreed by them. Further on perusal of Ex.P.7 & 8, it appears that, on 13-12-2009 and 05-12-2012, the defendants have executed the letter of acknowledgement debt by admitting the outstanding amount. Considering the above facts and looking to the date of execution of letter of acknowledgment of debt, I am of the opinion that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time. Further on perusal of Ex.P.9 & 10 i.e., copy of legal notice and postal receipt, it shows that, before filing the suit, the Plaintiff bank has issued an on demand legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay outstanding loan amount. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with copy of account extract (unmarked), it reveals that, as on 30-11-2015, the defendants are due an amount of Rs.45,491/-. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of 10 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P-1 to 14 and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff bank has proved its case as contended in the plaint. On the other hand, the defendants have not appeared before the court and not produced any rebuttal evidence or documents to disbelieve the version of the PW-1.
12. The plaintiff bank has contended that, the defendants are liable to pay future interest @ 15% P.A. from the date of suit till the date of realization. To prove the said fact, the plaintiff bank has relied upon the copy of Loan sanction letter and the same is marked as Ex.P.1. On perusal of loan sanction letter, it reveals that, at the time of availing the loan, the defendants have agreed to pay interest @ 15% P.A.
13. Considering the above facts and also on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff bank has proved 11 SC. No.1374/2015 SCCH-18 its case as contended in the plaint by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 to 3 are in the affirmative.
14. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff bank is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.45,491/- with future interest @ 15% P.A. monthly rest from the date of suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, directly on the computer, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th day of July, 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU.
12 SC. No.1374/2015
SCCH-18 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW-1: Vidyadhar Krishna Patwardhan List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex-P-1 : Loan sanction letter
Ex-P-2: Promissory note
Ex-P-3: Letter of Installment with acceleration clause
Ex-P-4: Declaration of undertaking
Ex-P-5 : Authority letter
Ex-P-6 Guarantee agreement
Ex-P-7 & 8: Letter of acknowledgment of Debt
Ex-P-9 Copy of Legal notice
Ex-P-10 Postal receipt
Ex-P-11 to 14 Returned postal covers
Ex-P-11 (a) to Copy of legal notice
14 (a)
List of witnesses examined for defendant:
-None-
List of documents exhibited for defendant:
-Nil-
III ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BENGALURU.