Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Sh. Ajay Gupta (Proprietor) on 14 September, 2011
" In the court of Sh. V.K Gautam, ACJ cum ARC (North),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi"
Suit No. 114/08
Unique Case ID no. 02401C030412005
Canara Bank, a body corporate incorporated
under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
& Transfer of Undertaking) Act,
1970 (Act No. 5 of 1970)
having its head office at
112, J.C Road, Bangalore
& amongst others a branch office at
3-F, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi-07 .......... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ajay Gupta (Proprietor)
M/s Aggarwal Trading Co.
2/68, Roop Nagar,
Delhi-07
Also at :
Sh. Ajay Gupta
S/o Sh. Ram Mohan Gupta
14/38, III Floor (East)
Shakti Nagar,
Delhi-07 .......Defendant
Date of Institution : 13.04.2005
Date of arguments : 12.09.2011
Date of decision : 14.09.2011
JUDGMENT
Suit no. 114/08 Page no. 1/6
1. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at 112, J.C Road, Bangalore and amongst others a branch office at 3-F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-07 and Sh. Pilli Phaneendra is the Manager and principal officer of the plaintiff bank, who is duly authorized to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. The defendant is a proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Trading Company and is a regular customer of the plaintiff bank and holder of current account no. 3259. The defendant approached the bank on 24.02.2000, with a request to grant/sanction of Overdraft Limit and the said request was considered by the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank accordingly sanctioned the OD Limit to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the defendant.
3. The defendant agreed to pay the amount availed under the OD Limit, to be repaid on demand and also agreed for the rate of interest and the defendant also executed the various documents for granting of the OD Limit by the plaintiff to him. The defendant availed and enjoyed the OD Limit as per his requirement which was released to the defendant from the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to regularized the amount or to bring the same Suit no. 114/08 Page no. 2/6 within the sanctioned limit of Rs. 3,75,000/- and to pay liquidates his liabilities for which, the plaintiff also wrote a letter on 13.01.2003 to the defendant, however, no reply was made by the defendant.
4. It is submitted that on 23.01.2003, the liability of the OD account was Rs. 812137.40 which was acknowledged and confirmed by the defendant by executing acknowledgment of debt on 23.01.2003.
5. It is further submitted that, there was no response from the defendant despite several reminders made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the security amount which was kept by the plaintiff was adjusted to the loan account on their maturity i.e 10.03.2003. But the KDR was unable to satisfy full and final outstanding amount.
6. It is further submitted that the plaintiff bank on 31.03.2003 reviewed the defendant's account, which had shown the liability of rs. 2,51,496/- including interest and Rs. 40,527/- as differential interest from 06.04.2000 to 31.03.2003 and penal interest @ 2% p.a from 01.04.2003 to 04.04.2005 and Rs. 7780/- as other charges, totaling to Rs. 2,99,803/-.
Suit no. 114/08 Page no. 3/67. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 18.12.2004 to the defendant to clear the entire outstanding amount but the defendant failed to pay the dues. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit praying that a decree of Rs.2,99,803/- with future interest @ 14.25% p.a with monthly rates plus 2% interest p.a against the defendant be passed alongwith costs of the suit.
8. Vide order dated 03.12.2007 of my Ld. Predecessor, the defendant was proceeded exparte and exparte plaintiff evidence was lead. Plaintiff had examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Gandhi, Manager of the plaintiff bank as PW-1 and thereafter exparte plaintiff evidence was closed.
9. PW-1 in his evidence has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents as stated in the plaint and has supported the case of the plaintiff by relying upon the following documents :
Ex. PW1/1 - GPA
Ex. PW1/2 - Account Opening Form dated
08.12.1999
Ex. PW1/3 - Request Letter for the OD Limit
Ex. PW1/4 - Lien Particulars of KDR
Ex. PW1/5 - Form no. 60
Ex. PW1/6 - Pronote for Rs. 3,75,000/- dated
24.02.2000
Suit no. 114/08 Page no. 4/6
Ex. PW1/7 - Letter for loan/advance against terms
deposit dated 24.02.2000
Ex. PW1/8 - Terms and conditions for the OD
Limit
Ex. PW1/9 - Letter of Undertaking dated
24.02.2000
Ex. PW1/10 - Letter for loan against terms deposit
for keeping KDR as security
Ex. PW1/11 - Letter of Proprietorship dated
24.02.2000
Ex. PW1/12 - Letter dated 13.01.2003 by the
plaintiff bank to the defendant
Ex. PW1/13 - Acknowledgment of Debt
Ex. PW1/14 - Legal Notice dated 18.12.2004
Ex. PW1/15 - Statement of Accounts
10. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and have heard the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
11. The defendant remained ex-parte and the plaintiff examined PW1 towards ex-parte plaintiff evidence, who has exhibited various documents, as discussed herein above. In my opinion, the testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted and unchalleanged. There is nothing on the Suit no. 114/08 Page no. 5/6 record to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. As such, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has been able to prove its case on record.
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.2,99,803/- and so far as interest is concerned, in my opinion, it would be sufficient, in these circumstances of the case, if the interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization is granted. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,99,803/- alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today on 14th Day of September, 2011.
(VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM) ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE cum-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI.
Suit no. 114/08 Page no. 6/6