Bangalore District Court
Bank A Total Sum Of Rs.12 vs Requests And Sanctioned The Pmmy-Micro on 10 March, 2023
12 COM.O.S.1314/2022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2023
PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR.,B.COM,L.L.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.1314/2022
BETWEEN:
Bank of Borada,
Nagappa Block Branch
No.61 M.K.Road,
Nagtappa Block, Near
Devaiah Park,
Srirampuram,
Bangalore, Karnataka-
560021 Represented by
its Chief Manager
Mr.Krishna Murari
Pankaj S/o. R.P.Ray,
Aged about 36 years,
Chief Manager.
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Sri.
Prakasha Hegde K -
Advocate)
AND
12 COM.O.S.1314/2022
Shree Manjunatha
Fashion, Prop.
A.T.Thirthegowda,
S/o.Thimmegowda, Aged
about 38 years O/a. #16
17 and 18, Gangannaiah
Badavane, 2nd Cross,
Doddabidare Kallu,
Bengaluru-560073
And also residing at
No.2, Gangannaiah
Badavane, 2nd Cross,
Doddabidare Kallu,
Bengaluru-560073
: DEFENDANT
(Defendant is placed
exparte as per order
dated 27.02.2023)
Date of Institution of the
12.09.2022
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for
Suit for recovery of money
declaration & Possession,
Suit for injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of 03.03.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment 10.03.2023
was pronounced
12 COM.O.S.1314/2022
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 05 28
(SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.12,32,287/- with future interest at the rate of 11.40% per annum from 04.08.2022 to till realization.
2. The Brief facts of the Plaint are as follows:-
The Defendant is a borrower. The Defendant had approached the Plaintiff Bank for a Term Loan (Purchase Garment Sewing Machines), which was a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the Loan Application dated 16.08.2019. The Plaintiff had considered the Defendant's requests and sanctioned the PMMY- MICRO ENTERPRISE Loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. On 22.08.2019 with interest @ 9.40% (Floating) p.a. in loan account No.115505207000027 now amalgamated to Bank of Baroda Account No.73900600000570. Defendant had executed;
on Demand Promissory Note dated: 22.08.2019; Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated: 22.08.2019; Instrument of 12 COM.O.S.1314/2022 Hypothecation of Movable Machinery dated: 22.08.2019; Declarations cum undertakings cum Authority dated:
22.08.2019; Draft undertaking/ Declaration dated: 22.08.2019;
General Undertaking dated: 22.08.2019; Letter of Authority in Bank's Favor to disclose or Publish Name of the Borrower in case of Default of Loan dated: 22.08.2019 and Letter of Sole- Proprietorship dated: 22.08.2019. Plaintiff on 22.08.2019; has issued Legal Notice to Defendant recalling the entire outstanding amount in Business Loan account in view of gthe default by him and same is retuned as not served. Defendant had failed to repay the admitted outstanding due amount. Defendant was very irregular in the matter of repayment of loan amount and its interests. Defendant had unquestionably failed and neglected to repay the loan amount as agreed, in spite of repeated requests and notices. The Defendant now owe to the Plaintiff Bank a total sum of Rs.12,32,287/- together with the interest therein calculated up to 03.06.2022. The amount due to the Plaintiff towards the Principal and interest is of Rs.12,32,287/- together with the interest 11.40% p.a. therein calculated up to on 03.06.2022, with future interests from 04.08.2022 till the date of Repayment. The Plaintiff had approached District Legal Services Authority Bangalore in PIM No.1329/2022. Despite of serving notice and repeated reminders, Defendant remained mute and delivered no response to the Plaintiff Bank.
12 COM.O.S.1314/20223. Inspite of paper publication, the Defendant has not appeared before this court, after waiting for 30 days, i.e., the time limit for filing written statement, he was placed ex-parte on 27.02.2023.
4. The Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank has examined PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. I have heard the arguments of the Advocate for the Plaintiff.
5. Based on the above pleadings of the Plaintiff, the following points arise for my consideration :-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the Suit Claim from the Defendant ?
2. What Order ?
6. My findings on the above Points are as under:
1. Point No.1 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
2. Point No.2 :- As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
7. Point No.1 :- The Plaintiff Bank substantiate of this case examined its Branch Manager Mr.Sumit Kumar as PW.1. PW.1 in his evidence reiterated averments of the Plaint, and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13.
12 COM.O.S.1314/20228. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 2000 - Karnataka - 234 (Syed Ismail vs. Smt. Shamshia Begum), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as follows :-
"3. The impugned order does not disclose the nature of pleading placed by the plaintiff and whether there is prima facie material to grant a decree in his favour. A judgement in favour of the plaintiff is not automatic. The Court has to consider the case of the plaintiff and grant a decree in his favour. The learned trial Judge has not referred to the pleadings of the plaintiff and the documents produced by him to substantiate even a prima facie case for grant of a decree in his favour. Therefore, the judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff is not automatic on failure of the opposite party to put his defence. The Court can grant a judgement in favour of the party only upon consideration of the case of the plaintiff including appreciation of pleadings and evidence."
9. The averments of the Plaint, evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 discloses that the Defendant had approached the Plaintiff Bank for a Term Loan (Purchase Garment Sewing Machines), which was a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the Loan Application dated 16.08.2019. The Plaintiff had considered the Defendant's requests and sanctioned the PMMY-MICRO ENTERPRISE Loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. On 22.08.2019 12 COM.O.S.1314/2022 with interest @ 9.40% (Floating) p.a. in loan account No.115505207000027 now amalgamated to Bank of Baroda Account No.73900600000570.
10. The Defendant had executed on Demand Promissory Note dated: 22.08.2019 at Ex.P.3, Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 22.08.2019 at Ex.P.4, Instrument of Hypothecation of Movable Machinery dated: 22.08.2019 Ex.P.5, Declarations cum undertakings cum Authority dated:
22.08.2019 at Ex.P.6, Draft undertaking/ Declaration dated:
22.08.2019 at Ex.P.7, General Undertaking dated: 22.08.2019 at Ex.P.8, Letter of Authority dated: 22.08.2019 at Ex.P.9 and Letter of Sole-Proprietorship dated: 22.08.2019 at Ex.P.10.
11. The has issued Legal Notice on 23.02.2022 at Ex.P.11 to Defendant recalling the entire outstanding amount in Business Loan account in view of the default by him and same is returned as not served. Defendant had failed to repay the admitted outstanding due amount. Defendant was very irregular in the matter of repayment of loan amount and its interests. Defendant had unquestionably failed and neglected to repay the loan amount as agreed, in spite of repeated requests and notices.
12 COM.O.S.1314/202212. From Ex.P.13 the Statement of account extract speaks to the effect that total amount payable includes the interest accrued and therefore, Plaintiff has successfully proved that the Defendants have availed loan and have not repaid the same and are liable to pay the suit claim amount as on the date of suit. The Plaintiff has prayed future interest on the suit claim amount at 11.40% per annum. However by considering the interest prevailing, it is proper to award interest @ 10% per annum from the date of suit.
13. The above mentioned transactions commenced from 16.08.2019 and the last payment made the Defendant on 24.12.2019 at Ex.P.13 and the suit filed on 12.09.2022 is within the limitation period.
14. In spite of Paper publication, the Defendant had not appeared and denied the claim of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 are remained unchallenged. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitle for recovery of the suit claim amount of Rs. 12,32,287/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Hence, I answer this Point in "Partly Affirmative".
12 COM.O.S.1314/202215. Point No.2 : -Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed in part with cost.
The Defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs. 12,32,287/- to the Plaintiff, with future interest at the rate of 10.00% per annum from date of suit till realization.
Draw Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Plaintiff and Defendant to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
( Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, verified and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of March, 2023).
(SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOR), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
12 COM.O.S.1314/2022ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1 Mr.Sumit Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Loan application Ex.P.2 Letter of sanction dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.3 Demand Promissory Note dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.4 Composite hypothecation agreement dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.5 Instrument of hypothecation of movables machineries dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.6 Declaration cum undertaking cum authority dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.7 Draft undertaking/ declaration dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.8 General undertaking dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.9 Letter of authority dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.10 Letter of soul proprietorship dated 22.08.2019 Ex.P.11 & Office copy of legal notice dated Ex.P.11(a) 23.02.2022 with postal receipt Ex.P.12 Unserved RPAD, opened in open Court, notice marked as Ex.P.12(a) Ex.P.13 Statement of account 12 COM.O.S.1314/2022 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL (SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.