Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs . Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd. on 25 July, 2012
Union Bank of India Vs. Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA: CIVIL JUDGE1,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
Suit No. 40/12
Case ID No. 02406C0033242012
Union Bank of India
A body corporate constituted
under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings Act, 1970) Having its
Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021
and one of its Branch at O9
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
...............Plaintiff Bank
Versus
M/s Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors/
Authorised Person / Principal Officers
A49, Mohan Co Operative Industrial Area,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi - 110044
..............Defendant
Date of Institution : 10.02.2012
Date of reserving the Judgment : ORAL
Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2012
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF A SUM OF RS.2,49,078/ ( RUPEES TWO
LACS FORTY NINE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY EIGHT ONLY)
Suit no.40/12 Page 1 of 5
Union Bank of India Vs. Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. This is a conventional suit for recovery of outstanding loan amount filed by a Public Sector bank against a defaulting borrower.
2. Plaintiff bank has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 2,49,048/ (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand and Forty Eight only) besides pendente lite and future interest @ 18.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount, and costs of the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a body corporate incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its head office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 and branch office amongst others at O9, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024. Mr. C.A. Abraham is the Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank at the Lajpat Nagar Branch and is duly authorized and empowered to sign / verify the plaint and institute the present suit.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant company maintains current account No. 349401010928817 and on request and application of the defendant company the plaintiff bank sanctioned temporary overdraft facility for an amount of Rs. 3,34,863/ on 29.05.2010 in the aforesaid current account, which has been so depicted in the statement of account of the defendant company maintained by the plaintiff bank.
4. After availing the aforesaid overdraft facility on 29.05.2010, the defendant company did not adhere to the financial discipline Suit no.40/12 Page 2 of 5 Union Bank of India Vs. Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd.
and terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank to the TOD facility advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendant company. Consequently, the account of the defendant became irregular and the defendant company did not repay the outstanding amount. It is averred that interest on the amount has to be applied at the rate of 16.25% (BPLR + 6.75%) per annum chargeable on monthly rests.
5. As per the averments made in the plaint the request of the plaintiff to the defendant to repay the aforesaid amount went in vain. Thereafter, under the compelling circumstances plaintiff bank served legal notice dated 12.05.2011 to the defendant demanding the outstanding amount of the plaintiff bank. Despite service of notice the defendant did not pay the aforesaid amount nor replied to the notice.
6. The defendants were duly served with summons. However, the defendants failed to appear before the Court and chose to remain absent. The suit was accordingly proceeded exparte qua the defendants.
7. Plaintiff has led exparte evidence and has examined Mr. C.A. Abraham (PW1), Chief Manager of the plaintiff Bank having its Branch Office at O9, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiff has exhibited the account opening form as Ex PW1/1 (OSR), letters dated 14.09.2010, 15.02.2010 and 10.03.2011 as EX.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4, legal notice as Ex.PW1/5 and statement of account as Ex.PW1/6. PW1 has also proved power of attorney in his favour as Mark A.
8. I have heard the Counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the record.
9. PW 1 has been examined by the plaintiff bank in order to Suit no.40/12 Page 3 of 5 Union Bank of India Vs. Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd.
prove its case. PW1 has deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved various loan documents executed by the defendants, the acknowledgment, the statements of account and legal notice etc. PW1 was neither cross examined on behalf of defendants nor any positive evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant since the suit was proceeded ex parte qua the defendant. The testimony of PW1 has therefore gone unrebutted. Accordingly, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of PW1 or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6.
10.As per the averments made in the plaint, the conduct of the defendant is clearly reflected in the statement of account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank and same establishes that the aforesaid temporary overdraft facility of Rs.3,34,863/ was availed by the defendant from the plaintiff bank. Since the same was without any security the present rate of interest with monthly rests is applicable thereupon which the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff bank. It is settled that as and when any of the customer or consumer avail the temporary financial facility at any point of time, the same is repayable along with interest applicable thereupon as per the norms / rules and regulations of the plaintiff bank.
11. In the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff bank has satisfactorily established that the defendant was sanctioned temporary overdraft facility for an amount of Rs. 3,34,863/. As per the statement of account Rs.2,49,078/ is outstanding and payable as on 31.01.2012. The statement of defendant duly certified under the Banker's Books of Evidence Act has been Suit no.40/12 Page 4 of 5 Union Bank of India Vs. Hallex Applied Power Pvt. Ltd.
proved and exhibited as Ex. PW 1/6.
12. In these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of a total amount of Rs. 2,49,078/ (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand and Forty Eight only) which shall form the principal / decreetal sum adjudged.
13.Perusal of the record reveals that the transaction in question was connected with the trade, business and industry of the defendant and same can be classified as a commercial transaction and accordingly the ends of justice would be met, in case the plaintiff bank is granted pendantelite and future interest @ 16.25% per annum on the principal decreetal sum adjudged from the date of institution of the suit till the date of its realization.
14. Thus, the suit is decreed for an amount of Rs. 2,49,078/ (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Nine Thousand and Forty Eight only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendan, alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 16.25% per annum, on the principal / decretal sum adjudged, from the date of institution of the suit till realization.
15.Suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open (SHREYA ARORA)
Court on 25.07.2012 CIVIL JUDGE1 (SOUTH DISTRICT)
(Judgment contains 5 pages.) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit no.40/12 Page 5 of 5