Delhi District Court
Uco Bank vs M/S Honey Kids on 1 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHITRANSHI ARORA , CIVIL JUDGE-03,
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 884/23
UCO BANK VS. M/S HONEY KIDS
In the matter of :-
UCO BANK
Having its Head office at 10, B.T.M.
Sarani, Kolkata-700001 and having its
branch office at Om Vihar, Phase-1,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
Through its Branch Manager
................Plaintiff
Vs.
M/S HONEY KIDS
Through its Prop. Ravi Baluja,
S/o Sh. Darshan Lal Baluja,
R/o C-12, Arya Samaj Road,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. ................Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Date of institution of the suit : 25.07.2023
Judgment reserved on : 15.01.2024
Date of judgment : 01.02.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs.2,41,368.37/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight and Thirty Seven Paise Only) along with interest, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
CS SCJ 884/23 UCO Bank Vs. M/S Honey Kids Page no. 1 of 6 BRIEF FACTS AS PER PLAINT:-
2. The plaintiff is a banking company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank in the month of October 2018 and made an application for grant of Cash Credit Limit under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna (PMMY) of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff bank considered the mudra loan request and sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the sanction letter.
3. In order to avail the sanctioned facility, the defendant executed demand promissory note dated 23.10.2018. Parties entered into a composite deed of hypothecation dated 23.10.2018. The defendant had agreed to make the payment of the loan amount alongwith applicable interest with monthly rests.
4. Due to repeated defaults of defendant in making the payment, the plaintiff bank issued several letters and reminders asking the defendant to pay the overdue amount. However, since the defendant failed to repay the overdue amount to the plaintiff bank, the loan account of the defendant was declared as NPA on 30.08.2021. The plaintiff issued a demand notice calling upon the defendant to pay the overdue amount. Despite that, the defendant failed to make the payment. The last payment was made by the defendant on 31.05.2021 of Rs.6,300/-.
5. The defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,41,368.37/-, which includes the outstanding amount of Rs.1,99,973.80/-, payable as on 30.08.2021 and the interest calculated CS SCJ 884/23 UCO Bank Vs. M/S Honey Kids Page no. 2 of 6 from 31.08.2021 to 15.07.2023 amounting to Rs.41,394.57/-. The defendant is also liable to pay pendentelite and future interest.
6. In the background of these facts, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for recovery against the defendant.
SUMMONS:-
7. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 25.07.2023. Summons of the suit issued upon the defendant could not be served by way of ordinary process. Therefore, the defendant was served by way of publication in newspaper 'Veer Arjun' on 19.10.2023. However, none appeared for the defendant and no Written Statement was filed on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on 02.12.2023.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
8. In plaintiff evidence, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the plaintiff, Ms. Anamika Pathak, deposed as PW-1, vide affidavit of evidence Ex.PW-1/A, bearing her signature at Point A and B wherein, she reiterated the contents of the plaint.
9. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. The AR of the plaintiff relied upon the following documents-
Sl Document Exhibits
No.
1. Gazette Notification/circular of Ex.PW-1/1
the plaintiff bank.
CS SCJ 884/23 UCO Bank Vs. M/S Honey Kids Page no. 3 of 6
2. Copy of composite deed of Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR) (from
Hypothecation dated 23.10.2018 page no. 15-36)
3. A-1, demand promissory note Ex.PW-1/3 (OSR) (from dated 23.10.2018 page no.38-39)
4. A-3, demand promissory note Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR) (from dated 23.10.2018 page no.40-41)
5. A-47, demand promissory note Ex.PW-1/5 (OSR) (page dated 23.10.2018 no.43)
6. Statement of account Ex.PW-1/6 (from page no.44-50)
7. Interest certificate Ex.PW-1/7 (page no.51)
8. Certificate under Section 65-B, Ex.PW-1/8 (page no.52) Indian Evidence Act
9. Certificate by the officer/manager Ex.PW-1/9 (page no.53) in charge of the computer system
10. Vide separate statement of the AR of the plaintiff, the plaintiff evidence was closed on 15.01.2024. This is the entire evidence adduced in this matter.
FINAL ARGUMENTS: -
11. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. I have heard the submissions advanced by him. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
CS SCJ 884/23 UCO Bank Vs. M/S Honey Kids Page no. 4 of 6 FINDINGS:-
12. From the perusal of the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff, it transpires that the defendant had applied for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana with the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank had sanctioned the loan and parties entered into a composite deed of hypothecation dated 23.10.2018, exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, wherein the terms of the loan were enumerated. Perusal of the same shows that defendant had agreed to make the payment of the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- subject to minimum rate of interest of 8.80% per annum chargeable with monthly rests or with such rate as may be decided by the bank from time to time. The defendant had also executed demand promissory notes in Form -A1, A-3 and A-47 all dated 23.10.2018 in favour of the plaintiff bank exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3, Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.PW-1/5 respectively.
13. It has been asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant did not honour the terms of the loan agreement and loan account of the defendant was declared as NPA w.e.f. 30.08.2021. To support its assertion that the defendant did not make the payment in time, the plaintiff has placed on record the account statement pertaining to the defendant. Perusal of the account statement and interest certificate, exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 respectively, supported by the Certificate under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act and Certificate under Section 2A (b) of the Bankers Book Evidence Act of the Manager Incharge of the computer system, exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 respectively, show that an amount of Rs.2,41,368.37/- is due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 15.07.2023.
14. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has not filed any reply to CS SCJ 884/23 UCO Bank Vs. M/S Honey Kids Page no. 5 of 6 controvert the allegations and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1.
15. Thus, in view of the averments of the plaintiff and the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover Rs.2,41,368/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) (rounded off) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, from the defendant.
16. Cost of the suit is awarded to plaintiff.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by CHITRANSHI CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date: 2024.02.01 17:03:53 +0530 Announced in open court (Chitranshi Arora) today i.e. 01.02.2024 Civil Judge-03, SW, Dwarka Court, ND. CS SCJ 884/23 UCO Bank Vs. M/S Honey Kids Page no. 6 of 6