Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Mehboob Qureshi Prop Superfine ... on 1 July, 2025
CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW010064622024
Civil Suit (Comm.) 457/2024
In the matter of:
Canara Bank
A body corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970), having its
head office at 112 J.C. Road, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560002 and one of its Branches
at 1542, Tota Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar,
Delhi-110035.
Through : Ms. Karishma Harjai, Manager/AR
.....Plaintiff
(Through Ms. Chitra Malhotra, Advocate)
Versus
Sh. Mehboob Qureshi, Pro. Of
M/s. Superfine Restaurant & Agro Traders,
R/o B-22, JJ Colony, Mangla Puri Phase-II,
Palam Village, Delhi-110075.
Also at : Shop A-119, G/F Palam Extn., Sec-7,
Ramphal Chowk, Dwarka, Delhi-110075.
.....Defendant
(Defence already struck off and
WS taken off the record vide order dt. 27.01.2025)
Date of Institution of Suit : 19.07.2024
Date of hearing final arguments : 01.07.2025
Date of judgment : 01.07.2025
Page 1 of 15
CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi
Suit for recovery of Rs.17,57,526.87 (Rupees seventeen lacs fifty seven
thousand five hundred twenty six and Paise eighty seven only) along with
pendente lite and future interest, cost and other charges
JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF ORDER 8 RULE 10 CPC
1. This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiff against
the defendant, thereby seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.17,57,526.87
(Rupees seventeen lacs fifty seven thousand five hundred twenty six and
Paise eighty seven only) along with pendente lite and future interest, cost
and other charges.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are
that plaintiff is a banking company and a corresponding new bank
constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertaings) Act, 1980, having perpetual succession and
may sue and be sued in its own name. The plaintiff has its Head office at
112, JC Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560002 and one of its Branch offices
at 1542, Totaram Bazar, Tri Nagar, New Delhi-110035.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant being Proprietor of
M/s.Superfine Restaurant & Agro Traders, approached it for grant of Cash
Credit Limit of Rs.10,00,000/- vide application dated 18.04.2022. After
considering the application of defendant, plaintiff sanctioned by the said
Page 2 of 15
CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi
loan to the defendnt vide sanction letter dated 26.04.2022, vide account
No.125001983094, along with interest @ 8.05% p.a. from 01.06.2024
along with penal interest @ 2% till realization. The defendant executed the
requisite documents in this regard. It is further averred that after availing
the aforesaid loan, the defendant became irregular in repayment and did not
repay the loan amount and, therefore, the account of defendant was
declared as NPA on 29.06.2023. It is further stated that despite repeated
requests, the defendant did not clear the outstanding amount. Hence,
plaintiff also sent legal notice dated 25.01.2024 to the defendant asking him
to pay the due amount but in vain. As per the aforesaid account of
defendant being maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.17,57,526.87 was
shown as outstanding against the defendant as on 31.05.2024.
4. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank has filed the instant suit against
the defendant inter-alia praying as under :-
(a) a decree in the sum of Rs.17,57,526.87 (Rupees seventeen lacs
fifty seven thousand five hundred twenty six and Paise eighty seven
only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest and other charges;
and
(b) Cost of the suit.
5. After filing of the suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued
against the defendant(s) vide order dated 19.07.2024. However, no one
appeared on behalf of defendant and the WS already lying filed in the
Page 3 of 15
CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi
matter was accordingly taken off the record and the defence of defendant
also stood struck off vide order dated 27.01.2025.
6. Thereafter, plaintiff bank preferred an application U/o VIII
Rule 10 CPC inter alia praying for passing of decree in the matter in terms
of the aforesaid provisions.
7. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Ms. Chitra
Malhotra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire
material on record.
SCOPE OF ORDER VIII RULE 10 CPC
8. The scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in commercial suits
particularly under the New Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015 has been
examined by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as,
"235(2016)DLT 354", titled as, "Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Umesh Gupta
& Anr.", whereby the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to lay down as
under:
xxxxx
"11. Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the
legislature to expedite the process of justice. The
courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory
tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing
the written statement by pronouncing judgment
against it. At the same time, the courts must be
cautious and judge the contents of the plaint and
documents on record as being of an unimpeachable
character, not requiring any evidence to be led to
Page 4 of 15
CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi
prove its contents.
..........
28. The present suit is also a commercial suit within the definition of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and it was the clear intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such cases."
xxxxxx
(i) Further the power and authority of the Courts to straightway decree a suit on the basis of averments made in plaint in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of a written statement filed by the defendant is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "(1999) 8 SCC 396", titled as, "Balraj Taneja V/s Sunil Madan".
(ii) Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.618/2019", titled as, "Parsvnath Developers Limited V/s Vikram Khosla" (DOD: 03.03.2021), has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is noted that the defendant has not cared to appear before this Court and was proceeded ex-
parte. The law with regard to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is clear, which stipulates that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within Page 5 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi time permitted or fixed by the Court as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment or make such orders in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of same, the decree sheet shall be drawn up. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of order VIII Rule 10 CPC, I proceed to decide the present suit. Further, I am in agreement with the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court as relied upon by the plaintiff in paragraph 8 on the issue that in ex-parte matters no purpose would be served if evidence is directed to be led. There being no written statement filed, the averments in the Plaint being unrebutted, the same are deemed to be correct.
xxxxx
(iii) Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.72/2022", titled as, "Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Udit Khatri & Ors." (DOO: 05.01.2023) has been pleased to clear the air regarding power and authority of Court to straightway decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
9. Further, on the aspect of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, I am also conscious of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.9695/2013", titled as, "Asma Lateef & Anr. V/s Shabbir Ahmad & Ors." (DOD: 12.01.2024), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to categorically observe that a Court is not supposed to pass a mechanical judgment invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, merely on the basis of plaint, upon the failure of defendant to file a written statement. I am further conscious of the fact that a judgment, if Page 6 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi pronounced by a Court under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) or Order XX CPC and thereby conform to its definition provided in Section 2(9) thereof.
10. The plaintiff has placed on record the postal receipt and tracking report in respect of the service of legal notice dated 25.01.2024 upon the defendant. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "(2007) 6 SCC 555", titled as, "C.C Alavi Haji V/s Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (DOD: 18.05.2007) has been pleased to enunciate the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the relevant paragraphs whereof reads as under:
xxxxx "13. According to Section 114 of the Act, read with Illustration (f) thereunder, when it appears to the court that the common course of business renders it probable that a thing would happen, the court may draw presumption that the thing would have happened, unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was not followed. Thus, Section 114 enables the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Consequently, the court can presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. When Page 7 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi applied to communications sent by post, Section 114 enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee.
But the presumption that is raised under Section 27 of the GC Act is a far stronger presumption. Further, while Section 114 of the Evidence Act refers to a general presumption, Section 27 refers to a specific presumption. For the sake of ready reference, Section 27 of the GC Act is extracted below:
"27. Meaning of service by post.--Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression 'serve' or either of the expression 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that Page 8 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR 1992 SC 1604] ; State of M.P. v. Hiralal [(1996) 7 SCC 523] and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu [(2004) 8 SCC 774:
2005 SCC (Cri) 393].) It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved.
xxxxx"
12. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "1980 RLR (Note 44)", titled as, "Kalu Ram V/s Sita Ram" has been pleased to hold that adverse presumption will be drawn if the legal notice is not replied to. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
xxxxx "It was held that the plaintiff before filing suit had served defendant with a notice making serious allegations that defendant was a trespasser and that his possession was illegal. Defendant did not refute these charges and remained silent by ignoring to reply the notice. Silence showed that he had nothing to deny and hence it was a fit case for raising adverse presumption. Besides the defendant also failed to prove the two contentions that he had raised. There is nothing on record to support the pleas that he had taken. His appeal is without force. The appeal of the plaintiff is supported by the provisions of O. 20 R.12, CPC and trial court should have ordered mesne profits till the delivery of Page 9 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi possession. Plaintiff is held entitled to same."
xxxxx (Emphasis supplied)
(ii) Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "98 (2002) DLT 573", titled as, "Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. Ltd. V/s Sumit Kalra & Ors.", (DOD: 07.05.2002) has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the respondent and that is that the appellant served a legal notice on the respondent vide Ex. PW-1/3. No reply the same was given by the respondent. But inspite of the same no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent.
This Court in the case of Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note) 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question. But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference against the respondent.
Xxxxx
(iii) Even recently on the similar aspect in case reported as, "RFA (OS) No.93/2010", titled as, "Krishan Kumar Aggarwal V/s Life Insurance Corporation" (DOD: 29.08.2014), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has Page 10 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
65) No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice sent by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hiralal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Chaudhary (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
66) In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels & Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (note) 44 wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that having not been replied, in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn.
Xxxxx"
13. Therefore, the adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the defendant.Page 11 of 15
CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi ANALYSIS
14. (i) Now coming back to the facts of present case. From the perusal of Non-Starter Report dated 20.05.2024, issued under the signatures of learned Secretary, DLSA, North-West, Rohini Courts, it is clearly apparent that despite due service the defendant neither appeared before the District Legal Services Authority during pre-institution mediation nor gave its consent/willingness to participate in the mediation process.
(ii) Furthermore, the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant for payment of the due amount. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "98 (2002) DLT 573", titled as, "Metropolis Travels & Resorts (I) Pvt. Ltd. V/s Sumit Kalra & Ors.", (DOD: 07.05.2002) has been pleased to hold as under:
xxxxx
13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the respondent and that is that the appellant served a legal notice on the respondent vide Ex. PW-1/3. No reply the same was given by the respondent. But inspite of the same no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent. This Court in the case of Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note) 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply. Observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply on all force to the facts of this case. In the case in hand also despite receipt of notice respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the Page 12 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi averments of demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question. But the learned Trial Court failed to draw inference against the respondent.
xxxxx
(iii) Furthermore, in another case "RFA (OS) No.93/2010", titled as, "Krishan Kumar Aggarwal V/s Life Insurance Corporation" (DOD:
29.08.2014), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
65) No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice sent by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23 rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hiralal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Chaudhary (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
66) In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels & Resorts Vs. Sumit Kalra 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 Page 13 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi RLR (note) 44 wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that having not been replied, in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn.
xxxxx
15. In view of the above judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, plaintiff has been successful in drawing of presumption as to correctness of the facts contained therein.
16. The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing on record that it has good case in its favour whereas the defendant has not been able to show any plausible defence in defending the present suit. The conduct of the defendant is also blameworthy.
17. As regards the quantum of interest, in view of the nature of transaction between the parties being commercial in nature, interest @ 8.05% p.a. would meet the ends of justice.
Relief
18. (i) In view of the above, a decree in the sum of Rs.17,57,526.87 (Rupees seventeen lacs fifty seven thousand five hundred twenty six and Paise eighty seven only) alongwith interest @ 8.05% per annum from 01.06.2024 till realization thereof is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit. Plaintiff is further Page 14 of 15 CS (Comm) 457/2024 Canara Bank Vs. Mehboob Qureshi entitled to counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/-.
19. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly, subject to payment of requisite court fees, if any.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities. VINOD Digitally signed by Dictated & Announced in the YADAV VINOD YADAV (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 01.07.2025. District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts Page 15 of 15