Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Ravinder Kumar on 23 December, 2020
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CNR No.: DLWT01-010129-2018
CS (Comm.): 26/2018
State Bank of India
having Central Office at
State Bank Bhawan
Madan Cama Road
Mumbai- 440024
AND
Local HO at
11 Parliament Street
New Delhi
through its Manager
Sh Balwan Singh ....... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ravinder Kumar
s/o. Sh Munna Lal
RZ-C-90, Gali No. 5
Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi- 110041 ....... Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.11.2018
Date of transfer to this court : 22.02.2020
Date of reserving order : 23.12.2020
Date of pronounced of order : 23.12.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs. 4,18,610/- with expenses and interest @ 12.05% per annum during the pendency of the suit till realization. CS (Comm.) No.: 26/2018 State Bank of India vs. Ravinder Kumar -2-
2. Relevant facts are that plaintiff State Bank of India which is a Corporate Body and being represented by its Manager Sh Balwan Singh who is posed at 882 East Park Road, First Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for Taxi loan. The loan was sanctioned by the bank for a sum of Rs. 5,35,000/- on 08.06.2016 at interest of 12.05% per annum at a monthly 48 EMI of Rs. 14,102/- for vehicle bearing Regn No. DL 1RTA- 9751 make Hyundai Xcent. Defendant against sanction of the above loan signed/ executed various documents in favour of plaintiff which included the loan application form; loan application form for MSE; letter of arrangement dated 08.06.2016; agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 08.06.2016 and consent clause to secure the loan advanced by the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendant miserably failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and committed willful defaults in repayment of loan amount as a result of which the loan account has become irregular and sticky and despite repeated demands, reminders, notices and personal visits of field staff of plaintiff bank, the defendant failed to improve his account position and resultantly the term loan has been classified as NPA on 08.05.2017. The loan was recalled by the plaintiff bank inter alia by serving legal notice dated 28.08.2018. Despite service of legal notice, the defendant did not pay outstanding amount. Hence the present suit. CS (Comm.) No.: 26/2018 State Bank of India vs. Ravinder Kumar -3-
3. Summons of the suit was issued to the defendant. In terms of order dated 02.09.2019, the Defendant was served by way of publication in newspaper 'Veer Arjun' dated 03.12.2019. But despite service by way of publication, the defendant did not appear nor file written statement and hence he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.02.2020.
4. The plaintiff has filed ex parte evidence of Sh. Balwan Singh, Manager of State Bank of India by way of affidavit. However, same was not tendered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Ved Prakash Garg Trading wherein it was held in M/s. Parul Food Products vs. M/s. Gurudev Industries CS(Comm) 1219/2018 dated 20.12.2018 that if the defendant is ex-parte and the plaint is supported by affidavit, there is no reason why further affidavit of examination-in-chief be filed. To quote:
"6. This Court is of the view that the present suit can be disposed off without any further delay. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd & Ors vs.Satya Infra & Estates Pvt Ltd 2013 SCC online DEL 508 has held as under:
I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex- parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise as per the amended CPC, besides being verified is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according CS (Comm.) No.: 26/2018 State Bank of India vs. Ravinder Kumar -4- any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination in chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiff and are already on record. I have therefore, heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction."
5. I have heard counsel for plaintiff through video conferencing.
I have also gone through the record.
LIMITATION
6. Firstly coming to whether present suit is within limitation ?
As per plaintiff, the loan account was open on 08.06.2016 as the defendant had signed the documents on the said date but the defendant had defaulted in making the payments and the loan account No. 61317006238 was declared NPA on 08.05.2017 as the defendant had stopped making payment. Legal Notice was sent on 28.08.2018. The present suit was filed on 05.11.2018 within a period of limitation. Therefore I am of the opinion that suit is filed within period of limitation.
ENTITLEMENT
7. The plaintiff's case is based on the following documents such as the loan application form; loan application form for MSE; letter of arrangement dated 08.06.2016; agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 08.06.2016 and consent clause for the loan was availed by the defendant. Plaintiff has also placed on record the statement of account w.e.f. 08.06.2016 to 29.8.2018 and the CS (Comm.) No.: 26/2018 State Bank of India vs. Ravinder Kumar -5- certificate of accrued interest which has come to Rs. Rs.101932.40
8. As per plaintiff, Rs.4,18,610.00 which includes principal with interest, is due and outstanding towards the said loan after adjusting the payment made by the defendant. The pleadings in the plaint are duly supported by documents, which remain unrebutted as the defendant chose not to appear nor file the written statement despite service of the summons by way of publication. Therefore in the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has successfully proved his case and he is entitled to recover Rs.4,18,610.00 from defendant.
INTEREST
9. As regards interest, the plaintiff bank has claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12.05% per annum with monthly rests during the pendency of the suit and till realization. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that it is commercial transaction and loan was advanced for the purchase of vehicle, I am of the opinion that interest @ 12% per annum would be just and reasonable and hence the plaintiff bank is entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. RELIEF
10. As discussed above, I am of the opinion that plaintiff CS (Comm.) No.: 26/2018 State Bank of India vs. Ravinder Kumar -6- bank is entitled to recover Rs.4,18,610.00 from defendant alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a. pendente lite of the suit and further future interest i.e. 12% p.a. from passing off the judgment till realization of the amount.
11. Accordingly suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with actual cost of suit including fee of the advocate which is assessed at Rs.11,000/-.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court Digitally signed
by GURDEEP
today i.e. 23.12.2020 GURDEEP SINGH
SINGH Date: 2020.12.23
15:16:59 +0530
(GURDEEP SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
WEST DISTRICT/THC/23.12.2020
CS (Comm.) No.: 26/2018 State Bank of India vs. Ravinder Kumar