Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Shri Khushal Singh on 12 March, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : SOUTH
SAKET, NEW DELHI
CISCS DJ2682018
CNRDLST010018472018
State Bank of India
a Corporation constituted under
State Bank of India Act, 1955,
having its corporate office
at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400 021 and having its Retail
Assets Central Processing Centre(R.A.C.P.C),
F40, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Ring Road
South Extension, PartI,
New Delhi110049 to which this case has been
transferred by South ExtensionII branch, New Delhi
and which is under administrative control of Delhi
Administrative Office, 11 Parliament Street,
New Delhi. ....Plaintiff.
Versus
Shri Khushal Singh
son of late Shri Baljeet Singh
R/o 15/2, Ground Floor,
Bhogal Lane, Jangpura
New Delhi11 0014
Also at
Shri Khushal Singh
Proprietor of Sai Engineering
307/2 Dera Mode,
Opposite Hotel Fortune
New Delhi110074. ...Defendant.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 1 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
2
Date of Institution : 15.03.2018
Arguments concluded on : 11.03.2020
Judgment pronounced on : 12.03.2020
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,55,653.37
WITH PENDENTELITE FUTURE INTEREST,
COST AND EXPENSES OF THE SUIT AND
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT
1.0 Present suit for recovery of Rs.3,55,653.47 alongwith pendente lite and future interest @9.40% per annum with monthly rest till payment / realization of the amount and other charges against the defendant has been filed, by the Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (R.A.C.P.C), State Bank of India, to which defendant's loan account was transferred as Non Performing Asset (NPA), through it's authorized representative Sh. Manoj Kumar, Manager.
1.1 Vide this suit prayer has also been made that the defendant be restrained from selling, transferring and alienating, disposing or otherwise parting with the possession and or / creating any third party interest in any manner in respect of the hypothecated Car i.e. Toyota Etios Liva bearing no.DL 3CBD 6646, colourSerene Bluish S, Chasis no.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 2 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 3 MBJK4ZBT900035590, Engine No.IND1299711, BodySaloor, FuelDiesel, manufacturing year2012 ("vehicle in question" in short); and to appoint Shri Manoj Kumar, Manager of the plaintiff bank as receiver / commissioner of the aforesaid hypothecated car.
2.0 Briefly stating the facts as per the plaint which are relevant for disposal of the case are, that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of Car Loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ for purchasing Toyota Etios Liva Car. After consideration of loan application of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned, lent and released the Car Loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ on 12.01.2013. In order to secure the repayment of the loan amount along with interest, the defendant hypothecated to the plaintiff bank, vehicle in question in terms of the Laon cumHypothecation Agreement. The defendant executed and signed LoancumHypotecation Agreement and Arrangement Letter dated 12.01.2013 agreeing to all the terms and conditions as stipulated therein including repayment of the loan with interest in 84 equated monthly installments of Rs.8,430/ each along with floating interest @ 10.50% per annum.
2.1 It is submitted by the plaintiff that as per the terms CISCS DJ2682018 page 3 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 4
and conditions, the defendant agreed to pay the first monthly installment on 11.02.2013 and the subsequent installments on or before the same date of each succeeding month thereafter till the entire loan was fully repaid with interest, other penalty costs, charges and expenses. For this purposes, the plaintiff bank opened and maintained Loan Account in the name of the defendant as the principal borrower of the plaintiff bank.
2.2 It is further submitted that after availing the above said loan facility, the defendant had deposited part payments of Rs.8,000/ on 13.11.2014, Rs.7,000/ on 09.01.2015, Rs.10,000/ on 14.02.2015, Rs.27,235/ on 12.03.2015, Rs.8431/ each on 13.03.2015, 29.03.2015 and 17.04.2015; Rs.50,000/ on 29.10.2015, Rs.8431/ each on 07.11.2015, 14.11.2015, 01.04.2016 and Rs.17,353/ on 02.04.2016, Rs.25,717/ on 10.08.2016 and Rs.30,000/ on 28.11.2016. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay any amount. He failed to regularize the loan account despite several requests and plaintiff's letters dated 16.09.2015, 14.06.2016 and 16.07.2016. Due to non payment of the EMIs despite repeated requests and reminders, the loan account of the defendant was classified as NPA on 01.10.2016. Consequently, a Statutory Notice / Demand Notice dated 11.04.2017 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 was issued to the defendant calling upon him to repay a sum of Rs.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 4 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 5 3,55,653.47 being outstanding dues along with interest to be charged at monthly rest, as on 11.04.2017 and other charges accruing thereon till the date of payment of the entire sum.
2.3 It is also submitted that despite service of aforesaid notice, the defendant failed to repay the outstanding dues. The plaintiff bank thereafter, issued a legal notice dated 24.10.2018 to the defendant. Despite service of legal notice, the defendant failed to pay the dues. Thus, compelling the plaintiff bank to file the present suit.
2.4 It is further submitted that the cause of action arose on 12.01.2013 when the defendant requested the plaintiff bank for grant of abovesaid loan and the plaintiff bank sanctioned and granted the said loan to the defendant. It further arose when the defendant executed various documents on 12.01.2013 regarding hypothecation of the vehicle and terms of repayment of the dues. It also arose when the plaintiff bank classified the defendant's loan account as NPA. It further arose on 16.09.2015, 14.06.2016 and 16.07.2017 when vide said letters the defendant was called upon to repay outstanding dues. It also arose on 11.04.2017 and thereafter on 24.01.2018 when notice under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 / legal notice to the defendant to clear CISCS DJ2682018 page 5 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 6 entire outstanding dues; and the cause of action is still subsisting and continuing on account of the non payment of the dues by the defendant. Plaint also mentions that since the loan was sanctioned and disbursed from South ExtensionII, New Delhi branch and all the loan documents signed and executed by the defendant at the said branch, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit and that the suit is filed within the period of limitation.
3.0 The defendant vide his written statement, under the head "Preliminary objection and submissions" on one hand, submitted that the defendant wishes to settle the matter by paying the principal outstanding amount in installments after six months. On the other hand, the defendant sought dismissal of this suit denying every averment of the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant denied that he approached the plaintiff bank for car loan, grant and disbursal of the loan by the bank and execution of documents. He has submitted that the documents annexed with the plaint are false and fabricated; and that the loan documents are not signed and executed as per law because, the same were not signed by the plaintiff's officer and do not even bear seal and stamp of the plaintiff bank; and therefore, there is no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant CISCS DJ2682018 page 6 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 7 has also submitted that the documents are not even filled completely. He also denied issuance / receipt of letters, notice under SARFAESI Act and the legal notice, as averred in the plaint.
3.1 The defendant has also submitted that the suit is also liable to be dismissed as the plaint has not been signed and filed by a competent official as the plaintiff has failed to place on record any authority letter in his favour; the notification dated 02.05.1987 as relied upon by the plaintiff bank in this regard does not help because, as per Clause C of the said Notification, all the managers have power to discharge, bills of exchange, promissory notes, documents of title to goods which come to them in discharge of function held for the time being. He has also submitted that suit is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that it lacks any cause of action and that it is barred by limitation; and also on the ground that this court has no territorial jurisdiction.
3.2 The defendant also submitted that the plaintiff bank has failed to file any document to show that the RACPC exclusively deals with NPA accounts of South Delhi branches.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 7 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
8
4.0 The plaintiff bank vide its replication denied all the
averments of the defendant and reiterated the contents of their plaint. It was submitted that the suit has been filed within limitation as the defendant initially had been paying certain amounts, as the loan was repayable in 84 equal monthly installments and the last payment of Rs.30,000/ was made by the defendant on 28.11.2016. As per which, the suit filed on 15.03.2018 is well within prescribed limitation period of three years. It is further submitted that cause of action arose from time to time, as detailed in the plaint. Further, as the loan was applied at, sanctioned and disbursed from South ExtensionII branch New Delhi the plaintiff's loan account was opened and maintained in the same branch, where even the documents were signed and executed by the defendant, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
4.1 The plaintiff has also reiterated that the suit has been filed by competent person. It is stated that Shri Manoj Kumar is competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings, Vakalatnama, Affidavits, Applications and Executions and file the present suit and to do all such acts as are necessary for the proper conduct of the present suit as per the General Regulations No. 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India, General Regulations, CISCS DJ2682018 page 8 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 9 1955 framed in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 50(3) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the prior approval of Government of India read with notification published in the Gazette dated 27.03.1987 which was published on 02.05.1987; Clause B of the said Gazette Notification dated 02.05.1987 prescribes that all the Branch Managers / Managers of Divisions in the grade of MMGSIII / MMGSII/JMGI are authorized to sign all the documents, instruments, account, receipts, letters and advices etc. connected with the current or authorized business of the bank in respect of all the matters coming in discharge of functions of the posts held for the time being. Shri Manoj Kumar was Manager of the rank of MMGS III.
5.0 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 31.07.2018, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD
2. Whether the suit is not barred by limitation? OPP
3. Whether the documents are forged and fabricated as claimed by the defendant? OPD CISCS DJ2682018 page 9 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 10
4. Whether there is a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant? OPP
5. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person? OPP
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as claimed by the defendant? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of sum of Rs.3,55,653.47/ as claimed for? OPP
8. To what interest is the plaintiff entitled to and for what period?OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the appointment of the Receiver as prayed for?
OPP
11. Relief.
6.0 The plaintiff bank produced two witnesses in support of its case. Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager, SARC, RACPC, South ExtensionI, New Delhi stepped into the witness box as PW1 and Sh. Sonu, Assistant Manager, State Bank of India as PW2.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 10 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
11
6.1 PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the plaint. He also placed reliance upon the following documents:
1. Copy of the gazette notification, Mark A.
2. Copy of General Regulations 76 and 77 Mark B.
3. Original car loan application form, Ex.PW1/1.
4. Original loan cum hypothication agreement dated 12.01.13, Ex.PW1/2.
5. Original arrangement letter dated 12.01.13, Ex.PW1/3.
6. Original vehicle delivery letter dated 12.01.13, Ex.PW1/4.
7. Original opinion report and consent clause (annexure 1), Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6.
8. Original statement of assets and liabilities of the defendant, Ex.PW1/7.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 11 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 12
9. Original Proforma Invoice dated 08.01.13, Ex.PW1/8.
10. Original sales invoice dated 16.01.13, Ex.PW1/9.
11. Copy of PAN card, ration card, identity card, ITR, passbook of PNB, Mark C (colly).
12. Copies of the RC and insurance, Mark D.
13. Three notices dated 16.09.15, 14.06.16 and 16.07.16, Ex.PW1/10 (colly).
14. Notice U/s 13 (2) of Sarfasi, Ex.PW1/11.
15. Legal notice dated 24.01.18, Ex.PW1/12 (colly).
16. Statement of account, Ex.PW1/13 (colly).
17. Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/14.
6.1.1 PW2 Sh. Sonu, Assistant Manager, State Bank of India also deposed on the same lines. He also testified that he CISCS DJ2682018 page 12 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 13 worked as Customer Assistant at State Bank of India, South ExtensionII branch, New Delhi of plaintiff from 18.12.2010 to 13.01.2017; and while working as Customer Assistant in State Bank of India, South ExtensionII branch, New Delhi he dealt with this matter as loan documents were executed and signed by Shri Khushal Singh / borrower in his presence. The defendant approached South ExtensionII branch, New Delhi of the plaintiff bank for grant of a car loan of Rs.5,00,000/ for purchase of Toyota Etios Liva GD car and submitted Application Form for car loan. The request of the defendant was accepted by the plaintiff bank and consequently a Car Loan of Rs.5,00,000/ for purchase of Toyota Etios Liva GD car.
6.1.2 The defendant himself stepped into the witness box as DW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. 7.0 I have heard Shri Gaganpreet Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, Sh. Bhuvneshver P. Nadheria, Ld. Counsel for the defendant and defendant in person and have perused the record carefully.
8.0 My issuewise findings in the matter is as under:
CISCS DJ2682018 page 13 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
14
Issues no. 3,4,6,7 & 8
8.1 It may be mentioned that on one hand, the defendant
vide his written statement stated that he is ready to settle the matter by paying the principal amount in installments after six months. On the other hand, he denied having ever approached the plaintiff bank for grant, disbursal of car loan by the plaintiff bank and execution of documents. He even alleged that the documents filed by the defendant are false and fabricated. In view of the same, issue no.3 whether the documents placed on record by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated, was framed and onus was placed upon the defendant to discharge. Interestingly, although, in his written statement the defendant denied all the averments made by the plaintiff bank in its plaint, in his testimony filed by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A, the defendant has not denied availing of car loan and execution of loan documents as averred by the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant himself stated that he is willing to pay the genuine outstanding dues to the plaintiff; and that he even tried to reconcile the matter through mediation but it could not be settled as none on behalf of the plaintiff bank deliberately appeared. Only the challenge to territorial jurisdiction of this court has been made in his testimony by the defendant; he has also pleaded that the RACPC is not legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 14 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
15
8.2 It is noteworthy that in his crossexamination also,
the defendant admitted availing car loan of Rs.5,00,000/ from State Bank of India, branch office South ExtensionII, New Delhi. It would be pertinent to refer here to his cross examination, relevant portion which reads as under: "I do not remember where did I sign my affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A. I am aware about the contents of my affidavit. It is correct that I had availed a car loan of Rs.5 lacs from SBI, South Extension II Branch. I had taken the loan in January 2013 for purchase of a Car ETIOS Liva. I am still driving the said vehicle bearing registration no. DL 3C BD 6646. I have not filed any document of purchase of the said vehicle. At this stage, witness is shown Ex.PW1/9 from judicial record. It is correct that this is the Sale Invoice of my aforesaid car purchased with bank loan.
I had been repaying the monthly installments time to time. The first installment was made in time. The installments in the first year were paid regularly. Only thereafter, I faced financial difficulties and could not repay the loan. I have not paid any installments towards the repayment of the loan since 2015 2016. Vol. As my business closed down.
....
At this stage, witness is shown from judicial record, Ex.PW1/13, the statement of account. It is correct that this statement CISCS DJ2682018 page 15 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 16 pertains to my loan account.
The attention of the witness is now drawn to the last entry dated 28.11.2016 of payment of installment of Rs.30,000/. Witness states that this was the payment made by me towards the payment of loan by visiting the bank. However, I had made further payment further payment 23 installment to bank executive who visited me at my house. I do not have the receipts of such payments. On one occasion one boy namely Rakesh had collected the payment. I do not remember the name of the the boy who collected other two intallments. It is wrong to suggest that I did not make any payment to any bank executive after the last payment reflected in statement of account vide entry dated 28.11.2016. I am Xth passed. I put my signatures in English. At this stage, witness is shown the Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. After seeing the documents witness states that the signatures on these documents at Point A are mine. I had not received any legal notice from the bank. Vol. because I changed my earlier address. The witness is now shown the legal notice from record bearing Ex.PW1/12 (colly) . After seeing the same, the witness states that the addresses mentioned in the notice are of my residence and factory. It is correct that I am presently also living at the address mentioned in the notice. However, my factory has been closed down and therefore, I am no more working from this address. It is wrong to suggest that I did receive the said notice. The vehicle is in my possession....".
9.0 In view of the above, the defendant has admitted the CISCS DJ2682018 page 16 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 17
plaintiff's case. He has admitted having availed the car loan of Rs.5,00,000/ from State Bank of India, South ExtensionII, branch . He has also admitted execution of loan documents / his signatures on the documents i.e. LoancumHypothication Agreement, Arrangement Letter, Vehicle Delivery Letter all dated 12.01.2013, Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4, respectively. In view of the same / categoric admission of execution of the loan documents by the defendant, it is evident that denial of all the averments in the plaint, lock, stock and barrel including execution of loan documents was nothing but a plaint falsehood. Further, in view of the above admission and that of Ex.PW1/9, the Sale Invoice and that the vehicle in question was purchased with the bank loan and the same was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank; and that the defendant is still driving the said vehicle, there is hardly any merit in the defendant's plea that in absence of signatures of any bank official or the seal of the bank on Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 (i.e. loancumHypothecation Agreement, Ex.PW1/2 and Arrangement Letter) there was no concluded contract. The judgments in cases 'R.Chinnaddurai vs S.Rajalakshmi, 2004 (4) LW 186 and 'Pushpa Bai Vs Dr. Williams and others', 2001(3) MLJ 52 relied upon by the defendant in this respect are not applicable/ relevant in the instant case.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 17 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
18
9.1 In view of the above, Issues No.3 and 4 are decided
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10.0 The defendant has also admitted in his cross examination that due to financial difficulties and due to closing down of his business he could not repay the loan installments regularly; and that he has not paid any installment towards loan since 20152016. The defendant even admitted that Ex.PW1/13 is statement of his loan account, which reflects the last payment entry of Rs.30,000/ on 28.11.2016. The defendant however stated that he had paid 23 more installments to a bank executive who visited his house. But neither did he specify further amounts he paid nor did he place on record any document to show alleged payments, if any made after 28.11.2016. The defendant rather admitted that he did not have any receipts of any such payments.
10.1 It is also significant to note that the defendant has also admitted in his crossexamination that he used to receive notices from the bank whenever he defaulted in payment of loan installment. The defendant however, further stated that he did not receive any legal notice from the bank. When the defendant was confronted with notices / letters dated 16.09.15, 14.06.2016 and CISCS DJ2682018 page 18 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 19 16.07.2016, Ex.PW1/10 (Colly),(whereby the defendant was informed about his loan account having been classified as NPA and was called upon to repay the entire outstanding dues with interest etc.), the defendant admitted that the address in the said letters / notices was his. He further stated that as he was suffering from depression and was not living at the given address, the notices may have been received by his family members. Even with respect to legal notice dated 24.01.2018, Ex.PW1/12 (Colly), the defendant admitted that the addresses mentioned in the said notice are of his residence and factory. He also admitted that presently also he is living at the same residential address. Although, he added that his factory has closed down and he is no more working from the said address. In view of these facts and circumstances, and considering that the plaintiff has also placed on record original courier receipts of legal notice dated 24.01.18 [Ex.PW1/12 (colly)], evidently the notices were duly served at the given address of the defendant.
10.2 It is noteworthy that the defendant in his cross examination even sought to know the exact outstanding amount payable by him. He even agreed to pay the same and stated that he can pay the suit amount in installments, if the interest was waived.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 19 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
20
10.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances,
admittedly, the defendant did not regularly repay the loan installments as agreed. The statement of loan account, Ex.PW1/13 has also been admitted. As per the same and including interest calculated on NPA, a total amount of Rs.3,55,653.47 is outstanding against the defendant. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to pay the interest at floating rate and at the time of filing the suit interest rate chargeable was 9.40% per annum with monthly rest. The defendant vide his testimony has not disputed the same. Further, the loan cum hypothecation agreement Ex.PW1/2 also supports the plaintiff's plea that the rate of interest was chargeable at floating rate, which was 10.5% at the time of grant of loan.
10.4 In view of the above, it is established that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,55,653.47 as on 26.02.2018. Further, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 9.40% per annum with monthly rests till realization of the amount. Thus, Issues no. 6 & 7 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; and Issue no.8 is decided accordingly.
Issues No. 1,2 and 5 11.0 The defendant vide his written statement has pleaded CISCS DJ2682018 page 20 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 21
that this court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, as the defendant is not residing within the jurisdiction of this court. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has not filed any document qua transfer of defendant's loan account to RACPC office at South Extension and to show that RACPC can recover dues of NPA accounts of South Delhi branches including on behalf of the plaintiff herein. Vide his evidentiary affidavit Ex.DW1/A, the defendant has stated that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction as the plaintiff is having its registered office at Mumbai which confers power of administrative control to Parliament Street, New Delhi only, which would fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Central District. He has further stated that the defendant is now residing at Bhogal, Jangpura, Delhi which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of South East District Delhi.
11.1 Although, the above pleas were raised in the written statement / evidentiary affidavit, same were not pressed during oral arguments. Even otherwise, admittedly, the defendant availed car loan from the plaintiff bank's branch at South ExtensionII New Delhi which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District South. As per the bank's policy, the NPAs are transferred to RACPC, which has remained undisputed. The CISCS DJ2682018 page 21 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 22 transfer of the defendant's loan account after the same being classified as NPA to RACPC, South ExtensionI, has also not been disputed. The said office also falls within the jurisdiction of South District. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
12.0 It has come on record vide statement of loan account Ex.PW1/13 that the defendant initially had been paying certain amounts from time to time and the last payment of Rs.30,000/ was made by the defendant on 28.11.2016. Considering the same, the present suit filed on 15.03.2018, is well within prescribed limitation period of three years.
13.0 The plaint mentions that Sh. Manoj Kumar, who has signed, verified and instituted the suit was working as manager and principal officer with RACPC, F40, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Ring Road, South Extension, PartI, New Delhi; and was competent and authorised to sign and verify the pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, applications and executions and to do all such acts which are necessary for the proper conduct of the present suit. The plaintiff in its replication has further stated that Sh. Manoj Kumar Was Manager GradeIII Officer.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 22 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh
23
13.1 PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik, who stepped into the
witness box to testify on behalf of the plaintiff bank is also Manager SARC with RACPC. He testified that the present suit was signed, verified and instituted by Shri Manoj Kumar, the then Manager SARC of the said branch of the plaintiff bank and was competent to sign and file plaint, affidavits, execution, vakaltnamas, reply and various other applications and to do all acts necessary for proper conduct of legal proceedings filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank in terms of Regulations 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India, General Regulations, 1955; the said Regulations were framed by the Bank in exercise of powers conferred upon it under sub section (3) of Section 50, the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the prior approval of Government of India read with notification published in the Gazette dated 27.03.1987 published on 02.05.1987. He also placed on record true copy of the aforesaid Notification (Mark A) and copy of aforesaid Regulation (Mark B). PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik was not crossexamined in this respect.
13.2 Be that as it may. It is seen that as per Regulation 77, SBI General Regulations, Chairman / any officer / employee of the bank as empowered under Regulation 76, may sign plaint, written statement, petitions, application, bond, swear affidavit etc. CISCS DJ2682018 page 23 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 24 and generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings etc. on behalf of the State Bank. Regulation 76 lays down that the officer / employee who is authorized by notification in the Gazette of India, shall be competent to do so. The plaintiff has placed on record Mark A, Notification /Notice no. ORG/17405 dated 27.03.1987 of State Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay, published in Gazette of India, 02.05.1987 issued pursuant to Regulation 76(1) of the aforesaid Regulations. As per Clause B of the said Gazette Notification, all branch managers, managers or division in the Grades of MMGS III/MMGS II/JMG.I have been empowered to sign all documents, instruments etc. 13.3 In view of above, Sh. Manoj Kumar, ManagerGrade III and PW1 Sh. Alok Manglik, Manager were competent to sign and file the plaint and to depose on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
13.4 In view of above, Issues no.1,2 & 5 are decided in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
Issue No.9 & 10.
14.0 It may be mentioned that during the course of proceedings, the defendant himself undertook not to dispose of CISCS DJ2682018 page 24 of 25 State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh 25 the vehicle in question and even made a statement on oath to this effect on 07.03.2020. In view of the same, the defendant is directed not to sell / transfer / alienate or otherwise part with the possession of the vehicle in question; and not to create any third party interest in the same in any manner. Issue no.9 is decided accordingly. Issue no.10 was not pressed.
Relief 16.0 In view of above, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,55,653.47. The plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9.40% per annum with monthly rest till realization of the outstanding amount. The costs of the suit are also awarded.
17.0 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by POONAM The file be consigned to the Record Room. POONAM A BAMBA A BAMBA Date:
2020.03.18 17:02:35 +0530 Announced in open Court (POONAM A. BAMBA) today on 12.03.2020 District & Sessions Judge (South) Saket/New Delhi.
CISCS DJ2682018 page 25 of 25
State Bank of India Vs Khushal Singh