Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs B.Manjunatha S/O Byrappa on 2 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61)
:Present :
Sri Vidyadhar Shirahatti, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated: This the 2nd day of November, 2018
: O.S.No. 4548 / 2017 :
PLAINTIFF:- Canara Bank,
A body corporate constituted under
banking companies (Acquisition and
transfer of undertakings) Act 1970, having
its head office at No.112, J.C.Road,
Bengaluru-560002 and having one of its
branch offices called as J.P.Nagar II Phase
Branch, JP Nagar II Phase, Bengaluru.
Reptd by its Agent and Manager
Smt.K.R.Shylaja Rao
(By Sri.K.Aswathnarayana, Adv)
Vs.
DEFENDANT:- B.Manjunatha S/o Byrappa, aged about 44
years, R/at No.25, 60 feet road,
Byravanagar, R.V.College Post, Near J.B.
Layout, Bengaluru-560059.
Exparte
2 O.S.No.4548/2017
Date of institution of the suit : 04-07-2017
Nature of the suit : Money suit
Date of commencement of : 26-09-2018
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 02-11-2018
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
01 03 28
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the Plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of suit claim amount with interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows; On 25.9.2014 the defendant approached plaintiff bank for sanction of Canara Mobile loan, for purchase of Hyundai New I 20 Sportz (O) car and on considering the request of defendant plaintiff bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.6,50,000/- on 1.10.2014 and released the amount. The defendant had hypothecated the said car in favour plaintiff bank. The defendant executed Can Mobile Loan agreement dt:1.10.2014 in favour of the plaintiff bank. As per sanction terms and conditions, the defendant is required to remit the loan in 60 3 O.S.No.4548/2017 equated monthly installments of Rs.14,036/- each and the first EMI was to commence from November, 2014 onwards. Accordingly, the defendant also hypothecated the said car in favour of the plaintiff bank and also had executed necessary documents in favour of the bank in the prescribed format. The defendant also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 10.70% p.a. compounded with monthly rests on the outstanding liability in the loan account. The defendant also agreed to pay penal rate of interest at 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment of the EMIs. The plaintiff submits that, defendant is having current account No.0492.201.001750 with the plaintiff bank and in the said current account the defendant in the usual course of business and he was enjoying temporary over draft facility. On 3.10.2015, the defendant had requested the plaintiff to allow the temporary overdraft facility of Rs.5,000/- for paying loan amount and the same was allowed. During course of enjoying the said temporary overdrafts, he is due in a sum of Rs.9,810.95 as on the date of plaintiff in the above said current account and the defendant failed to clear the same in spite of repeated demands 4 O.S.No.4548/2017 and personal requests. In spite of repeated requests and demands, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount as agreed by him and became defaulter. Hence, issued legal notice on 31.05.2017. As on the date of suit, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.6,12,703.95/- together with court costs and current and future interest at the rate of 11.90% p.a. compounded monthly, from the date of this suit till the date of realization of the suit claim.
3. After institution of the suit, suit summons duly served on the defendant through RPAD. In spite of due service of summons, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and hence, the defendant is placed exparte.
4. In support of its case, plaintiff bank got examined its Manager Smt.K.R.Shylaja Rao as PW1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P 1 to 11.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff.
6. The following points arise for my determination:- 5 O.S.No.4548/2017
1) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover suit claim amount with interest as sought for?
2) What order or decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
8. Point No. 1: Perused the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to 11. A perusal of evidence of PW1 coupled with contents of Ex.P.1 to 11 makes it clear that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank with a request to grant loan for the purpose of purchasing the car. In fact the defendant offered the hypothecation of same as security to the proposed loan. Considering said request, the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the defendant on 1.10.2014. On the same day the defendant executed agreement cum deed of hypothecation for the purpose of availing the loan. The defendant borrowed said loan agreeing to repay the same with interest as well as overdue interest with outstanding loan 6 O.S.No.4548/2017 amount in 60 monthly installments of Rs.14,036/- commencing from November 2014 onwards. It appears the defendant by filing loan application requested the plaintiff bank to sanction loan amount for the purpose of purchasing car for transport operator.
9. In support of its case, plaintiff bank produced loan application at Ex.P.1, sanction letter at Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 is the can mobile agreement, Mandate at Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 is the hypothecation letter, Ex.P.6 is the Computerized copy of B register extract, Ex.P7 is the legal notice dt:31.5.2017, Ex.P.8 is the postal receipt, Ex.P.9 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are the statements of account, which shows that as on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant was due a sum of Rs.6,13,703.95/- with interest.
10. On going through the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff bank, I am of the view that absolutely there is nothing on record to discard the case of the plaintiff bank. Though the suit summons duly served on the 7 O.S.No.4548/2017 defendant, he failed to appear before the Court and hence entire case of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and same is fit to be accepted. Hence, the plaintiff bank has proved its case against the defendant by producing substantial evidence on record. As such, the suit of the plaintiff bank is fit to be decreed with cost. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of my answer to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant is hereby decreed with costs.
The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit claim amount of Rs.6,13,703.95/- with current and future interest at the rate of 11.90% p.a. compounded monthly from the date of this suit till the date of realization of the suit claim amount from defendant.
The defendant shall satisfy the decree within 6 months from the date of decree, failing which plaintiff is entitled to recover the decreetal sum from the defendant, in accordance with law.8 O.S.No.4548/2017
Draw decree accordingly.
*** (Directly dictated to the stenographer on computer, and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of November, 2018) (Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Annexures
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW1 Ashok Kumar
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 : Loan application.
Ex.P.2 : Loan sanction letter.
Ex.P.3 : Can Mobile Agreement.
Ex.P.4 : Mandate.
Ex.P.5 : Particulars of hypothecation.
Ex.P.6 : Computerised copy of B- Register Extract
Ex.P.7 : Legal notice dated 31.05.17.
Ex.P.8 : Postal receipt
Ex.P.9 : Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.P.10 : Statement of account containing 3 pages
with certificate.
9 O.S.No.4548/2017
Ex.P.11 : Statement of account containing 2 pages with certificate.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s:
NIL LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 10 O.S.No.4548/2017