Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

( vs Deepak Gupta on 3 November, 2010

                     IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR CCJ/ARC
                             ROHINI   COURTS DELHI


SUIT No.        257/09


ICICI BANK LTD.
Having its Registered Office at :
"Landmark", Race Course Circle ,
Vadodra -390007.
Having its Branch Office at :
Plot No. 7, S.D.Tower, ,
Sector 08, Rohini, New Delhi -110085.
Through its Authorised Representative
Mr. Prashant Saini


                                                     (PLAINTIFF)
                         Versus



  Deepak Gupta
  S/o Chander Prakash Gupta
  R/o House No. 489 Kohat Enclave,
         Pitam Pura, Delhi



                                                    (DEFENDANT)


  Date of filing of suit             : 17.01.2009
  Date of reserving for orders      : 03.11.2010
  Date of pronouncement of orders : 03.11.2010




257/09                                                             1
                                           JUDGMENT

1. By way of this Order I shall announce Ex-parte final judgment .

The facts of the case in brief is as under :-

The plaintiff is a body incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956. The defendant is a borrower and has approached the plaintiff for grant of loan of Rs. 383,000.00/- against this security of vehicle namely, 'Swift VXI' under the loan cum hypothication scheme of the plaintiff. Defendant had entered into Credit Facility Application alongwith the terms and conditions for the said facility, deed of hypothication an irrevocable power of attorney with the plaintiff bank. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan in equated monthly installments with interest. Considering the requests of the defendant, the loan of Rs. 383,000.00/- was sanctioned . The defendant agreed to repay the said loan with interest in 35 equated installments of Rs. 13,252/- each. The vehicle in question purchased by the defendant was hypothicated in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant, however did not pay the installments in time. A legal notice was also given by the plaintiff , however no payment have been paid hence this suit.

2. The defendant was issued summons and was not served by way of normal process . He was therefore, directed to be served by way of publication as per the provision of order 5 Rule 20 CPC . The publication has been done in newspaper Veer Arjun dated 16.07.2010. Defendant was considered to be served as per law, however he did not appear despite service, therefore, as per the order dated 29.07.2010 he was proceeded Ex-parte.

3. Following issues have been framed for determination of ex-parte evidence .

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as prayed for, alongwith interest?

2. Any other relief?'

4. Plaintiff has examined only one witness in his ex-parte evidence i.e. Authorised Representative Mr. Ankur Khole. Mr. Ankur Khole, AR of the plaintiff has stated that a loan of Rs. 383,000.00/- was sanctioned in the name of defendant for the security of the vehicle namely " Swift VXI" . This loan was to be paid in 35 equated installments of Rs. 13,252/- each. Various documents were executed in between the parties. The original loan agreement , Original deed of hypothecation is and Irrevocable power of attorney is Ex. PW 1/3 (colly). Defendant has defaulted in repayment of 35 equated monthly installments , therefore, plaintiff bank has recalled the loan facility available to defendant. A demand notice dated 30.12.2008 was also given to the defendant which is Ex. PW 1/4. The statement of account has also been filed by the plaintiff which is Ex. PW 1/6. It is further stated by the AR of the plaintiff bank that no payment has been made which is outstanding due as per the statement of account.

5. Final arguments heard at length. Record perused thoroughly. From the perusal of the record it is already stated above that defendant is Ex-parte . The evidence led by the plaintiff is therefore, uncontroverted and duly corroborated. The suit is also shown by the plaintiff to be filed within the period of limitation. There is nothing on record from which contrary view can be taken against the plaintiff, therefore, the evidence led by the plaintiff is to be considered accordingly as per the law. The plaintiff , therefore, has been able to discharge the burden of proving the issue no. 1 in his favour. Issue no 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant. Thus, he is entitled for the decree . Therefore plaintiff is entitle for the recovery of Rs. 246,646.55/- alongwith interest pendent lite & future @ 8% per annum till realisation alongwith cost.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Court                 (Prashant Kumar)
Dated 03.11.2010                    CCJ-cum-ARC/North-West
                                        Rohini Courts, Delhi




257/09                                                         4
 Suit No. 257/09


   03.11.2010 Present : Counsel for plaintiff.
                         Defendant ex-parte.
                         Ex-parte final arguments heard.

Ex-parte final judgement is pronounced vide separate order sheet. Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room.

(Prashant Kumar) CCJ-cum-ARC/North-West Rohini Courts/Delhi 03.11.2010 257/09 5