Delhi District Court
Bank Of India vs M/S Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd on 5 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) - 421/19
Bank of India
Having its Head Office at:
Star House, C-5, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
Having one of its Branch at:
1, Paras Cinema, Nehru Place,
New Delhi
Through its Attorney Holder
Sh. Vaibhav Anand ........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd.
I-3, Sector-9, Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201301
Through its Director
2. Sh. Manish Maurya
S/o Sh. Ram Manohar Kushwaha
R/o H-144, Top Floor,
Sector-22, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301
3. Sh. Manoj Kushwaha
S/o Sh. Pakhandi Kushwaha
R/o H-144, Top Floor,
Sector-22, Noida
Uttar Pradesh-201301 ..........Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 15.10.2019
Date of Reserving of judgment : 05.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.05.2025
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 1 of 9 for sum of Rs. 20,23,158.79/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Eight and Seventy Nine Paisa Only) against the defendants.
2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff bank is a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 and one of its Branch Offices at 1, Paras Cinema Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 and Sh. Vaibhav Anand has been duly authorized to contest the present suit on behalf of plaintiff bank. 2.2 That the defendant no. 2 and 3 being the Directors of the defendants No. 1, approached the plaintiff for granting a Cash Credit Account facility with the plaintiff and had submitted the application form for the same. The plaintiff had duly accepted the same and had opened a Cash Credit Account bearing no. 601830110000042 in the name of defendant no.1. That after opening of the said account, the defendants had approached the plaintiff and requested for availing the cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) by hypothecation of stock and book debts upto 90 days and same was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 21.03.2017. Further, the personal guarantee of defendant No. 2 and 3 were given.
2.3 That the defendant no. 2 and 3 have executed separate Deed of Guarantee (Form No. OD-194) dated 21.03.2017 in favour of the plaintiff, whereby they assured the plaintiff that the defendants will make timely payment of the due amount and in default of the CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 2 of 9 same, the defendant no. 2 and 3 will be liable to the plaintiff for payment of the due amount along with applicable rate of interest. 2.4 That the defendants had further requested the plaintiff bank for Temporary Overdraft Facility on the said account to meet the urgent business commitments. On the request of the defendants, the temporary overdraft was allowed in the said account by the plaintiff bank on 24.04.2018 for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) to meet the urgent business commitments of defendant company.
2.5 That the said temporary overdraft which was granted for a short period of 30 days was not adjusted by the defendants, despite repeated requests from the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank had lastly made transaction on 08.10.2018. Thereafter, no such transaction has been made out in the above said account of the defendant company.
2.6 That the plaintiff bank vide its letter dated 26.09.2018 had requested the defendants to pay the overdue amount of Rs.14,94,125.85/- in the said account bearing no. 601830110000042 but the defendants have failed to pay the same. That when the defendants failed to clear the outstanding amount despite lapse of long period of time, the plaintiff bank had decided to recall the entire outstanding amount on account of above said temporary overdraft and interest/other charges applied in said account vide its legal notice dated 30.11.2018 sent through its advocate thereby calling the defendants to pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest. Despite receipt of the Legal Notice, the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount to the CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 3 of 9 plaintiff bank.
2.7 That even thereafter, the plaintiff bank is regularly following up the defendants for the payment of the due amount, however, the defendants have completely failed to make any payment to the plaintiff bank, which clearly shows that the defendants have no intention to pay the overdue outstanding amount to the plaintiff bank.
2.8 That as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank in due course of the banking business as on date, a sum of Rs.20,23,158.79/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Eighty and Seventy Nine Paisa Only) towards the principal is outstanding in the said account and hence, the present suit.
3. The present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff in the court of Ld. ADJ, however, vide order dated 18.02.2020, the present suit has been transferred to the Commercial Court and summons of the suit were issued upon the defendants on 23.09.2020 by Ld. Predecessor of this court. Despite various opportunities, no steps were taken by plaintiff in order to serve the defendants and hence, on 11.01.2024, the present suit was dismissed on account of non prosecution.
Thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2024, the suit of the plaintiff was restored, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- and it was also ordered that plaintiff shall not be entitled to interest for the period from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 15.10.2019 till 11.07.2014 on the principal sum claimed. Thereafter, defendants have been duly CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 4 of 9 served by way of publication dated 04.02.2025. However, despite being served neither defendants have appeared nor filed their WS. Hence, on 01.05.2025, the right of the defendants to file the WS was closed and they were also proceeded exparte.
4. Thereafter matter was fixed for exparte plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff in order to substantiate its claim has filed exparte evidence by way of affidavit and examined AR for plaintiff bank Sh. Lokender Singh as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved the following documents:-
1. True copy of authority letter is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Sanction letter dated 21.03.2017 is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 21.03.2017 is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of deed of guarantee (Form No. OD-194) dated 21.03.2017 is Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.) (OSR).
5. Copy of temporary overdraft facility to be availed by the defendants is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
6. Copy of the letter dated 26.09.2018 of the plaintiff Bank is Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
7. Office copy of the legal notice dated 30.11.2018 of the plaintiff bank is Ex.PW1/7.
8. Certified statement of account as maintained by the plaintiff bank alongwith interest calculation sheet is Ex.PW1/8.
9. NSR dated 23.07.2019 is Ex.PW1/9.
10. Certificate u/s 63B of Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 is Ex.PW1/10.
CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 5 of 95. In order to adjudicate upon the suit, I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of AR for plaintiff bank and therefore, plaintiff should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
6. After perusing the record of the Court file and considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, I find that the suit of the plaintiff has been filed on 15.10.2019 and is within the prescribed period of limitation. Further, I find that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as plaintiff bank has its branch office at Nehru Place, New Delhi and cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. I have fortified my view with the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Auto Movers Vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2021) SCC Online Delhi 4387. 7.1 PW-1 has categorically deposed that the defendant no. 2 and 3 being the Directors of the defendants No. 1, approached the plaintiff for granting a Cash Credit Account facility with the plaintiff and had submitted the application form for the same. The plaintiff had duly accepted the same and had opened a Cash Credit Account bearing no. 601830110000042 in the name of defendant no.1. That after opening of the said account, the defendants had approached the plaintiff and requested for availing the cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) by hypothecation of stock and book debts upto 90 days and same was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 21.03.2017. Further, the personal guarantee of defendant No. 2 CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 6 of 9 and 3 were given.
7.2 That the defendant no. 2 and 3 have executed separate Deed of Guarantee (Form No. OD-194) dated 21.03.2017 in favour of the plaintiff, whereby they assured the plaintiff that the defendants will make timely payment of the due amount and in default of the same, the defendant no. 2 and 3 will be liable to the plaintiff for payment of the due amount along with applicable rate of interest. 7.3 That the defendants had further requested the plaintiff bank for Temporary Overdraft Facility on the said account to meet the urgent business commitments. On the request of the defendants, the temporary overdraft was allowed in the said account by the plaintiff bank on 24.04.2018 for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) to meet the urgent business commitments of defendant company.
7.4 That the said temporary overdraft which was granted for a short period of 30 days was not adjusted by the defendants, despite repeated requests from the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank had lastly made transaction on 08.10.2018. Thereafter, no such transaction has been made out in the above said account of the defendant company.
7.5 That the plaintiff bank vide its letter dated 26.09.2018 had requested the defendants to pay the overdue amount of Rs.14,94,125.85/- in the said account bearing no. 601830110000042 but the defendants have failed to pay the same. That when the defendants failed to clear the outstanding amount despite lapse of long period of time, the plaintiff bank had decided to recall the entire outstanding amount on account of above said CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 7 of 9 temporary overdraft and interest/other charges applied in said account vide its legal notice dated 30.11.2018 sent through its advocate thereby calling the defendants to pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest. Despite receipt of the Legal Notice, the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff bank.
7.6 That even thereafter, the plaintiff bank is regularly following up the defendants for the payment of the due amount, however, the defendants have completely failed to make any payment to the plaintiff bank, which clearly shows that the defendants have no intention to pay the overdue outstanding amount to the plaintiff bank.
7.7 That as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank in due course of the banking business as on date, a sum of Rs.20,23,158.79/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Eighty and Seventy Nine Paisa Only) towards the principal is outstanding in the said account. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted without any challenge as defendant has chosen not to appear or contest the suit. As far as liability of defendant is concerned the same stands proved in view of the unrebutted testimony of the PW-1.
8. As regards the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095, the grant of pendente- lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 8 of 9 Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I have granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the Plaintiff because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and because in the past decade, the nationalized banks have also granted interest at the rate of 5-6% per annum, on terms deposits.
9. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 20,23,158.79/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Eight and Seventy Nine Paisa Only) along with the interest pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% p.a. till its realization. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff shall not be entitled to interest for the period from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 15.10.2019 till 11.07.2014.
10. The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed accordingly.
11. Decree sheet be drawn by the Reader of this Court and file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH Announced & dictated SINGH Date: 2025.05.05 in the open Court on 17:18:28 +0530 05th day of May, 2025 (NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND 05.05.2025 CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 9 of 9 CS(COMM)-421/19
Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr.
05.05.2025 Present: Sh. Amandeep Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff alongwith AR for plaintiff.
Defendants are already exparte.
PW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Vide separate statement of AR for plaintiff, PE stands closed.
Exparte final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment of even day announced in the open court, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
File be consigned to record room after due
Digitally signed by
compliance. NEELAM NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.05
17:18:37 +0530
(NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-02)
South-East, Saket Courts, ND
05.05.2025 jm
CS(COMM)-421/19 Bank of India vs. M/s Voltain Electric Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Page 10 of 9