Delhi District Court
7 vs M/S Tirupati Plastic on 13 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. HASAN ANZAR, ADJ-06
WEST DISTRICT,TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS No.7942/16
Punjab National Bank
A Body corporate constitued under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking
(40 of 1980) Act and having its Head office at
7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
and having its Branch office at-
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
Throuhg its Senior Branch Magar/ Incumbernt
..........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Tirupati Plastic,
Through its sole Proprietor
Sh Vikas Soni
Plot no. 906-907, Rithala Industrial Area
Rithala, Delhi-85
2nd Address:
B-110, Vijay Vihar, Phase II, Sector I,
Rohini, Delhi-85
..........Defendant
Date of Institution: 11.10.2012
Reserved on : 06.10.2020
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2020
Ex- Parte Judgment
1.Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs 408886.26/- alongwith pendentilite and future interest.
CS No.607942/16 Punjab National Bank vs M/s Tirupati Plastic Page no. 1 /6
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Company Act 1970, having perpetual succession and may sue and be sued in its own name.
3. It is also stated that defendant represented the plaintiff that he is running business in the capacity of sole proprietor of M/s Tirupati Plastic and requested the plaintiff bank for grant of loan facility for his said business. In consideration of the request made by the defendant, plaintiff granted cash credit limit and sanction the loan facilities to the tune of Rs 3 lakhs on 28.08.2009.
4. It is also averred that defendant in terms of aforesaid agreements agreed to repay the cash credit facility alongwith interest@11% p.a. with monthly rest subject to the charges as per guidelines issued by RBI.
5. It is averred that defendant has hypothecated stocks of his proprietorship firm as security for the repayment of the said loan, cost and other charges. The limit was duly availed by the defendant. Further, defendant had also applied for one credit card. Defendant was provided with credit card bearing no. 4197890000436070 by the plaintiff bank having a limit of Rs 50000/-.
6. Perusal of the case file reflects that summons were sent to the CS No.607942/16 Punjab National Bank vs M/s Tirupati Plastic Page no. 2 /6 defendant but he failed to appear and ultimately defendant was served by way of publication in the newspaper 'Veer Arjun' dated 10.10.2013. However, despite publication none has appeared on behalf of defendant and consequent to the non appearance, defendant was proceeded Ex parte vide order dated 22.01.2014 and matter was fixed for Exparte PE.
7. In support of the its case, plaintiff examined PW1 Sh Rajiv Kumar Dogra by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A. The affidavit is basically reiteration of averments as made in the plaint. He has relied upon the document as recorded below.
Description of documents Exhibits
Copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/1
Application form alongwith its enclosures Ex.PW1/2 and terms and conditions Copy of Hypothecation of goods and Ex.PW1/3 book debts to secure cash credit facility agreement Copy of letter dated 14.09.2010 alongwith Ex.PW1/4(colly) rent agreement dated 12.01.2010 Statement of account Ex.PW1/5 (colly) Letter dated 02.12.2012 in respect of Ex.PW-1/6 credit card Legal notice Ex PW-1/7 Postal receipts Ex PW1/8 and PW1/9 CS No.607942/16 Punjab National Bank vs M/s Tirupati Plastic Page no. 3 /6 PE stands closed on 03.11.2015
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record. I have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff.
9. Before taking up the issues in the present case, it is relevant to mention that present suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 CPC and summons were issued against defendant under the provisions of Order 37 CPC however, vide order dated 22.01.2014, it was noted that defendant was served by way of publication and the case was fixed for Ex parte PE. It is thus apparent that present suit was not considered as a summary suit under the provisions of Order 37 CPC but as an ordinary civil suit. It is also relevant to note that even otherwise suit has to be considered as an ordinary suit since plaintiff has also claimed recovery towards the credit card issued to defendant but no document in respect of claim qua credit card is filed on behalf of the plaintiff except unsigned letter.
10. PW1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and deposed on the lines of the facts stated in the plaint. Testimony of PW1 is unrebutted and unchallenged. It is apparent that a cash credit facility of Rs 3 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of plaintiff on 28.08.2009 and defendant after availing the cash credit facility has hypothecated the goods with plaintiff vide Ex PW1/3. Plaintiff has also placed on CS No.607942/16 Punjab National Bank vs M/s Tirupati Plastic Page no. 4 /6 record the letter dated 14.09.2010 by which defendant has intimated bank with regard to change of address. Statement of account vide Ex PW1/5 shows that there is an outstanding balance of Rs 321242/- against defendant. Statement of account is duly supported with certificate under Sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
11. Plaintiff has also claimed amount of Rs 67997/- towards the credit card vide letter dated 02.01.2012 vide Ex PW1/6. However, the said transaction is not supported by any document except an unsigned letter which was attested by Bank Manager. It is also relevant to mention that no document such as credit card application or the statement of account in respect of credit card which is purported to be issued in the name of defendant. Hence, plaintiff would not be entitled to recover in respect of dues so called credit card. The unsigned letter does not establishes the liability of the defendant in respect of the so called credit card bearing no. 4197890000436070.
12. In view of the above discussion, plaintiff will be entitled for an amount of Rs 321242/- as the sum adjudged (suit amount) to be paid by defendant to plaintiff as on 09.06.2012.
13. It is also apparent from the perusal of the statement of account vide Ex PW1/5 that last transaction was done by defendant on 23.09.2011 whereas present suit was filed on 28.09.2012 therefore, CS No.607942/16 Punjab National Bank vs M/s Tirupati Plastic Page no. 5 /6 suit filed by plaintiff is within limitation. Since loan account is declared as NPA by plaintiff and therefore, it would be just and proper to award interest @6% p.a. RELIEF
14. In view of the above discussion, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs 321242/- alongwith interest pendentilite and future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realisation.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
HASAN Digitally signed
by HASAN ANZAR
ANZAR 17:10:14 +05'30'
Announced in the Open Date: 2020.10.13
Court on 13.10.2020.
(Hasan Anzar)
Additional District Judge-06
West District, THC
CS No.607942/16 Punjab National Bank vs M/s Tirupati Plastic Page no. 6 /6