Delhi District Court
Syndicate Bank vs . Anil Pandit on 19 September, 2019
Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE05, ROOM NO. 605, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (Comm.) No. 26/19 Case ID No. DLST010014742019 In the matter of Syndicate Bank, a body corporate constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act No. 5 of 1970 having Its Head Office at Manipal, Udupi District Karnataka state and Branch amongst others at Hauz Khas New Delhi110021 .............Plaintiff Versus Sh. Anil Pandit S/o Sh. Ram Pandit 581/11, Block L1 Sangam Vihar New Delhi110068 ..............Defendant Date of Institution : 02.03.2019 Date of reserving the judgment : 30.07.2019 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2019 Decision : Decreed Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 1 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit JUDGMENT IN SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.5,60,778.51 (FIVE LAC SIXTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT & FIFTY ONE PAISE ONLY) 1.
Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.5,60,778.51 with the averments that it is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and is filing the suit through its Authorized Representative Sh. Vinod Kumar K.
2. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank on or about 29.12.2015 for obtaining loan to purchase Swift Dezire LXI (O) for plying it as Taxi under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana. On request of the defendant a term loan in the sum of Rs.5.34 lacs was sanctioned in his favour, repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs.11,600/ each, starting from 30.04.2016 with floating rate of interest. A sanction letter in this regard was issued on 27.01.2016 pursuant to which defendant executed a hypothecation agreement and delivered it to the plaintiff on 01.03.2016 with declaration and undertaking. The vehicle was purchased by the defendant from the loan advanced by the plaintiff and was registered with Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 2 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit number DL1RTA8309. Defendant was not regular in paying installments however acknowledged his liability from time to time. He deposited the sum of Rs.12,000/ on 02.01.2018 and Rs.12,109/ on 31.01.2018 in his loan account. No payment was made thereafter. A reminder was sent to the defendant which remained undelivered. A legal notice dated 01.12.2018 was sent too but to no avail. The loan account reflected an outstanding amount of Rs. 557678.51 with charges of legal notice in the sum of Rs.3,100/ as on 31.01.2019 and the instant suit was accordingly filed for recovery of the sum of Rs.5,60,778.51 with pendente lite and future interest @12.75 per annum with monthly rests.
3. Summons of the suit was issued to the defendant.
Defendant was served on 16.05.2019 but failed to appear and file written statement. Consequently, defence of the defendant was struck off vide order dated 15.07.2019.
4. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC provides for the procedure to be followed by the Court in case defence is struck off, and reads as below: Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 3 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit "10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. - Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up."
5. The instant suit pertains to a commercial dispute as defined in Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 2(1)(i). The relevant provisions read as below: "2(1)(c)"commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
2(1)(i) "Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with section 12 which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government."
6. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has also made certain Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 4 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of their application to any suit involving commercial dispute, vide Section 16 that reads as below:
16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.
(3) Where any provision of any rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail."
7. The relevant amendments in CPC for the purpose of present matter are the proviso added to Order VIII Rule 1 & Order VIII Rule 10 CPC which read as below: "in Order VIII in rule 1, for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely: "Provided that where the defendant fails to file the Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 5 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall be not later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record."
"in rule 10, after the first proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement."
8. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted in order to provide for constitution of commercial courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value with an objective of speedy disposal of commercial disputes that shall help create a positive image to the investor world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system. (Referred Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015). The amendment carried out in Order VIII Rule 1 & Order Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 6 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit VIII Rule 10 CPC make it amply clear that there is no scope for extending the permitted time for filing the written statement.
9. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC also was introduced by way of the amendment in 2002 with an aim of speedy disposal of Civil Cases. The provision is mandatory as in case Court is not proceeding under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, reasons for the same are required to be given.
10. The instant suit pertains to recovery of loan amount. The entire transaction is based upon documents which are filed in original. The suit is based entirely upon documentary evidence which is referred in the plaint duly supported by an affidavit. Plaintiff is a banking company, and thus a custodian of public money. Recovery of the loan given by a banking company is therefore in the interest of nation's economy too, and sooner it is the better.
11. Considering the documents on record which include the loan application form, hypothecation agreement, loan account statement and loan recall notice all of which suggest that the Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 7 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit defendant had availed the loan facility but did not return the same, I deem it fit to apply the provisions laid down in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
12. Parties entered into a loan agreement and loan was disbursed from the office of the plaintiff situated at Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which area falls in the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The pecuniary jurisdiction also lies with this court. The loan was disbursed on 27.01.2016 and recalled vide notice dated 01.12.2018. The instant suit was filed on 02.03.2019 i.e. within 3 years and hence, is within the limitation period. There is thus no legal infirmity in the Suit.
13. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,57,678/ as reflected due in the statement of account, alongwith simple pendentelite interest @ 9% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum.
14. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 8 of 9 Syndicate Bank vs. Anil Pandit and against the defendant.
Digitally
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. signed by JYOTI JYOTI KLER
16. File be consigned to Record Room. KLER Date:
2019.09.23 17:59:50 +0530 Announced in the open (JYOTI KLER) Court on 19.09.2019 ADJ05 (SOUTH DISTRICT) (Judgment contains 9 pages) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI Suit (Comm.) No.26/19 Page 9 of 9