Delhi District Court
Bank Of India vs Kumar Collection on 4 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.: 69/2024
CNR No. DLND01-0109162023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
BANK OF INDIA
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
SWATI WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL, MANDIR MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Ms. ANU KUMARI
PROPRIETOR OF M/S KUMAR COLLECTION
D-6/16, MANDIR MARG LAL QUARTER
KRISHNA NAGAR, EAST DELHI
NEW DELHI-110051.
ALSO AT:
GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 7/1, 7/2, 7/3
TCC COMPLEX, SECTOR-10, FARIDABAD
BALLABHGARH, HARAYA-121006.
ALSO AT:
TWOER4, GROUND FLOOR, GROUND C PURI
ANAND VILLA SECTOR 81, FARIDABAD,
HARYANA-121002.
......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Suit : 20.01.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 10.09.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 04.10.2025
CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 1 of 9
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit for recovery of Rs.10,53,637.60 Paise along with interest and costs, filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the plaint and the documents filed therewith, is as under:-
(i.) The plaintiff is a bank duly incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its branch office at Mandir Marg, Swati Working Girls Hostel, Pocket H, Type 2, President's Estate, New Delhi-110001. Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Chief Manager, has been duly authorized to represent the plaintiff bank by virtue of Board Resolution dated 05.12.2016.
(ii.) The defendant had approached the plaintiff bank at its Mandir Marg Branch and sought financial facility/Loan under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana.
(iii.) It is averred that after considering the representation of defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned credit limit of Rs.9,90,000/- to the defendant under the Mudra Loan Scheme on 12.08.2020. It is the case of plaintiff that in order to secure the loan amount the defendant had executed the several loan and security documents on 12.08.2020 i.e., CBD-23 dated 12.08.2020, General Agreement (L-516), General Agreement for CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 2 of 9 Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement, RBLR (Repo based Lending Rate) agreement, Demand Promissory Note "L 434" dated 12.08.2020 along with "L 435" dated 12.08.2020.
(iv.) It is further the case of plaintiff that on 29.10.2022, the defendant was intimated by the plaintiff bank to pay the Overdues amount of Rs.53,143/- in aforesaid loan account bearing No. 605273110000137. It is averred that due to default of the defendant in repayment of dues to the bank, the account of the defendant was classified as Non Performing Asset with effect from 25.12.2022.
(v.) It is further case of plaintiff that it issued to the defendant a notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 for repayment of outstanding dues of Rs.10,24,232.12/- against the Mudra Term Loan.
(vi.) It is further case of plaintiff that the loan was sanctioned, granted and availed by the defendant and the rate of interest charged by the plaintiff bank is reflected in its statement of accounts. The defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and despite undertaking to repay the loan amount.
(vii.) It is further the case of the plaintiff that since the defendant failed to comply with the notice, the plaintiff instituted Pre-Litigation Mediation before CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 3 of 9 Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. However, the defendant did not appear in the said proceedings and consequently, Non Starter Report dated 04.09.2023 was issued by the concerned Authority. Thereafter, the present suit came to be instituted.
3. Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued to the defendant. The summons which were sent to the defendant were received back unserved, on which, the defendant was directed to be served with the summons of the suit by way of publication in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' (Hindi Edition) in terms of order dated 16.12.2024. Accordingly, the defendant was duly served by way of publication in the above said newspaper, dated 22.03.2025. However, despite service by way of publication in said newspaper, no body appeared on behalf of the defendant and therefore, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 27.03.2025.
4. Before proceedings further, it may be noted that during pendency of the present suit, an application was moved on behalf of plaintiff bank for substitution of Ms. Mamta Gautam, Senior Branch Manager, in place of previous AR namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar. Vide order dated 25.09.2024, the said application was allowed and Ms. Mamta Gautam was allowed to be substituted as AR of the plaintiff bank.
5. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined its AR namely Ms. Mamta Gautam, Senior Branch Manager, as PW1, who has deposed on the lines of the averments made CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 4 of 9 in the plaint. She also relied upon/proved the following documents:-
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Copy of Sanction Letter dated Ex. PW1/1 12.08.2020.
2. Copy of CBD-23 dated 12.08.2020. Ex. PW1/2
3. Copy of General Agreement (L-516) Ex. PW1/3 dated 12.08.2020.
4. Copy of General Agreement for Ex. PW1/4 Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 12.08.2020.
5. Copy of RBL agreement dated Ex. PW1/5 12.08.2020.
6. True copy of the Demand Promissory Ex. PW1/6 Note L 434.
7. Copy of Credit Note (L-435) dated Ex. PW1/7 12.08.2020.
8. Statement of Account of Defendant. Ex. PW1/8
9. Copy of Authorization Letter of the Ex. PW1/9 plaintiff bank.
10. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) Ex.
CPC. PW1/1011. Non Starter Report. Ex. PW 1/11
6. On 31.07.2025, vide statement of AR of plaintiff, ex-parte PE was closed.
7. I have already heard, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
LIMITATION:
8. Firstly, I shall deal with issue as to whether or not the present suit is within period of limitation? In this regard, while referring to the relevant documents, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted that the last payment was made by defendant to the plaintiff bank on 25.12.2022, and since, CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 5 of 9 the present suit was filed on 20.01.2024, it is well within the period of limitation.
9. This is a suit for recovery of money and limitation is 3 years from the date when the cause of action arises. In view of submissions made and the fact that the last payment was made by defendant to the plaintiff bank on 25.12.2022, as reflected from Statement of Account Ex. PW1/8, the Court is in agreement with Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit filed on 20.01.2024, is well within the period of limitation.
JURISDICTION:
10. While referring to the Loan Agreement entered into between the parties and other documents, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel of plaintiff that the complete loan account was being maintained by the plaintiff bank at its Mandir Marg Branch, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
11. The defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for availing loan. Said loan was sanctioned vide Sanction letter Ex. PW1/1. Further, it is the specific case of the plaintiff bank that the aforesaid loan account of defendant was being maintained at its Mandir Marg branch, New Delhi. Hence, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
12. Since the suit amount is above specified value i.e. Rs.3 lacs, as prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, this Court has also pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 6 of 9
ENTITLEMENT:
13. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has argued that the entire testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for. He also referred to the relevant documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/11, in order to bring home his point that these documents clearly prove that the suit amount was due towards defendant at the time of filing of the suit. He, therefore, prayed that the suit may be decreed.
14. PW1 examined by the plaintiff bank, is found to have deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and has proved the relevant documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11, as already noted above. There is no dispute at all that defendant had availed the loan facility from the plaintiff under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme and the loan of Rs. 9,90,000/- was sanctioned to the defendant vide Sanction Letter Ex. PW1/1. The defendant had executed the General Agreement for Hypothection cum Loan Agreement vide Ex. PW1/4. Defendant had also executed Repo Based Lending Rate (RBLR) Agreement vide Ex.
PW1/5. As per the statement of account (Ex. PW1/8), the closing debit balance is shown as Rs.10,53,637.60 Paise as on 25.04.2023.
15. There is no defence of the defendant because she has chosen to not appear despite service of summons. The deposition made by PW1 on oath is duly supported by the relevant documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/11, as already referred CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 7 of 9 herein above. Even otherwise, nothing contrary to the case of plaintiff has been brought on record. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve such testimony made on oath.
16. From the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of PW-1 coupled with documents proved during the course of evidence, it is duly established on record that the defendant had availed Loan facility under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna from the plaintiff bank and Rs.10,53,637.60 Paise is due, outstanding and payable by defendant to the plaintiff bank, as per the statement of account. Therefore, Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10,53,637.60 Paise as on 25.04.2023 including the pre- suit interest from the defendant.
INTEREST:
17. As regards interest, it is submitted that as per RBLR Agreement, (Ex. PW1/5), the defendant had agreed to pay interest @ 8.35 per annum with monthly rests and as may be reset by plaintiff bank at such intervals as it may deem fit. Therefore, there is a contractual agreement between the parties regarding rate of interest. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW-1 in that regard also remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and hence, proved against the defendant.
18. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover agreed rate of interest from the defendant from the date when it became due till the date of filing of the suit, the loan transaction being commercial in nature.
CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 8 of 919. As regards pendent-lite and future interest, the plaintiff bank has claimed interest at the rate of 8.35% per annum, which claim is considered to be on higher side. Thus, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff bank is entitled to pendent-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
RELIEF:
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and the following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10,53,637.60 Paise (Rupees Ten Lacs, Fifty Three Thousand, Six Hundred, Thirty Seven and Sixty Paise only);
(ii.) Pendent-lite and future interest is awarded @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization;
(iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Announced in the Open Court BALWANT by BALWANT
on this 04 Day of October, 2025. RAI
th RAI BANSAL
Date: 2025.10.04
BANSAL 16:46:19 +0530
(BALWANT RAI BANSAL)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (Comm.): No. 69/2024 Page 9 of 9