Delhi District Court
Icici Bank vs Tripit Kumar Choudhary on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH.MANOJ KUMAR-I: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-013240-2022
CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022
In the matter of:
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Having its registered office
Near Chakli Circle,
Old Padra Road,
Vadodara, Gujarat-390007
And having it branch office at:
E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055. ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Tripit Kumar Choudhary,
S3, Khirki Extension,
G Floor Near Sai Mandir,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017. ... Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.9.2022
Date of Reserving judgment : 11.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 12.02.2026
For Plaintiff : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
For Defendant : Mr. K. Kumar, Advocate
JUDGMENT :
This is a suit for recovery of ₹13,21,836/- instituted by plaintiff ICICI Bank Ltd. against defendant Tripit Kumar Choudhary.
CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 1 of 23
2. Facts, as per the plaintiff's version, are that the plaintiff is a banking company within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of banking, financing and providing loan facilities to its customers under various schemes such as personal loan, auto loan etc; that the plaintiff is having its registered office at Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007; that the plaintiff is having its branch office at E3, E- Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 within the jurisdiction of this court; that Mr. Jitender Mehndiratta is the authorised representative (AR) of the plaintiff and is well conversant with the facts of the case and he has been authorized by a Power of Attorney to sign, file, verify and affirm the pleadings and also to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff; that the defendant is the borrower of the plaintiff and has availed loan facility from the plaintiff under its personal loan vide loan agreement bearing No LPDEL00042888708; that in the month of January, 2021, the defendant approached the plaintiff and represented that he required loan facility for his personal use/business purpose; that the defendant also represented that he was financially sound and assured that he shall be making regular payment of the loan in installments; that the defendant provided documents, representation and references before the representative of the plaintiff to show his bona fide to the plaintiff for the same; that the defendant executed a Credit Facility Application Form, and thereby he agreed and undertook to repay the said loan of ₹10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 14%. per CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 2 of 23 annum (IRR) in total 60 months through equal monthly installments of ₹23,233/- each; that on executing the said Credit Facility Application Form the defendant also agreed to pay the plaintiff a penal interest at the rate of 24% on defaulted equated monthly installment/pending dues; that on such representation and assurances made by the defendant, and on executing Credit application form and other allied documents, the plaintiff agreed to sanction a loan of ₹10,00,000/- to the defendant and disbursed the amount on 09.01.2021 after deducting processing charges and other instructed/standard deductions/charges; that as per the Credit Facility Application Form, there were number of obligations on the defendant, and, contrary to the assurances and undertaking, the defendant failed to discharge his liability and defaulted in making the regular equated monthly installment as per repayment schedule; that the defendant had been extremely irregular in making the payment of the equated monthly installments to the plaintiff; that as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant has made a repayment of ₹0 and defaulted in repaying the regular installments of ₹4,41,427/- (that is, approximately 19 EMIs) till 10.8.2022; that the plaintiff tried to recover the due amount, but the defendant evaded in paying the same; that despite several requests and reminders the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues, thereby infringed the financial discipline; that the plaintiff looking to the indifferent attitude of the defendant in not repaying the installments was compelled to issue a recall notice dated 25.6.2021 through which the entire loan of the defendant was recalled CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 3 of 23 and the foreclosure amount was demanded from him; that in spite of sending of the recall/demand notice, the defendant failed to make the payment of the termination/foreclosure amount as demanded by the plaintiff in notice; that as per the foreclosure of the aforesaid loan account and the statement of account dated 10.8.2022, the defendant is liable to pay ₹13,21,836/- (principal outstanding ₹10,00,000/-, late payment penalty ₹80,927/-, cheque bouncing charges and other charges ₹8,968/-, interest for the month ₹1,465/- and interest on pending installment ₹1,95,076/-) to the plaintiff which he has willfully failed to pay; that the defendant has made himself liable/bound for payment of a penal interest at the rate of 24% from 10.8.2022 till its realization along with applicable tax/levies as per the Credit Application Form; that the present suit arisen out from commercial dispute as defined in section 2(1) (c) of the Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Ordinance, 2015 (sic); that the plaintiff approached the DLSA, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and filed an application for mediation; that notices were issued to the defendant, but he failed to appear before the DLSA/Mediation Centre, Central District, Tis Hazari Court Delhi, and DLSA, Central District, Delhi has issued a non-starter report on 05.5.2022. It is further stated in the plaint that due to the acts of the defendant a cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff at different dates leading upto the institution of the present suit.
3. After institution of the suit, despite service of summons CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 4 of 23 upon the defendant, no written statement of defence was filed on his behalf within the time prescribed by law, therefore, by order dated 24.8.2023 passed by the learned predecessor right to file the written statement on behalf of the defendant was closed and the matter was posted for the plaintiff's evidence with limited right to the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff.
4. In support of its claim, the plaintiff got examined PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta, its AR and PW2 Mohit Grover, its Chief Manager. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta during his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A along with documents, namely, Ex.PW1/1 (copy of Power of Attorney dated 09.3.2021), Ex.PW1/2 (copy of Personal Loan Application Form dated 09.01.2021), Ex.PW1/3 (copy of Credit Facility Application Form dated 09.01.2021), Ex.PW1/4 (copy of key fact statement and most important information dated 09.01.2021), Ex.PW1/5 (copy of loan recall notice dated 25.6.2021), Ex.PW1/6 (copy of foreclosure dated 10.8.2022 and statement of account for the period 09.01.2021 to 10.8.2022), Ex.PW1/7 {certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1860 (sic)}, Ex.PW1/8 {certificate under section 2A of the Banker's Books of Evidence Act, 1891 (sic)} and Mark-P1 (postal receipt).
5. During his examination-in-chief PW2 Mohit Grover tendered document Ex.PW2/1 (copy of Customer Application Form) along with document Mark-P2 (copy of Aadhar card) and Ex.PW2/D1. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Mohit Grover were cross examined CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 5 of 23 by counsel for the defendant and thereafter evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed. During cross-examination of PW2 Mohit Grover documents Ex.PW2/D2, Ex.PW2/D3, Ex.PW2/D4, Ex.PW2/D5, Ex.PW2/D6 and Ex.PW2/D7 were also brought on record.
6. The learned predecessor also granted opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence, therefore, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and during his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW1 Tripit Kumar Choudhary was cross- examined by counsel for the plaintiff, and thereafter, evidence on behalf of the defendant was closed.
7. I have heard Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. K. Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and have gone through the material on record carefully. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.
8. Having drawn the attention of the court on the testimonies of PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Mohit Grover, documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/8, Mark-P1, Ex.PW2/1, Mark-P2, Ex.PW2/D1, Ex.PW2/D2, Ex.PW2/D3, Ex.PW2/D4, Ex.PW2/D5, Ex.PW2/D6 and Ex.PW2/D7, Union Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others, 1996 (6) SCC 660 and copy of judgment dated 22.4.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS (OS) 362/2018 entitled Vijay Kumar Ojha v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that on 23.10.2019 the defendant got opened a saving bank account No. 132901506242 with BMLJ House, 169, Bada Bazar, CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 6 of 23 Munger, Bihar branch of the plaintiff and in that regard he made the application, a copy of which is Ex.PW2/1. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that subsequently the defendant with the aid of the app provided by the plaintiff ported the said account to E-30, Saket, New Delhi branch of the plaintiff. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that on 09.01.2021, through app, the defendant applied for a loan of ₹10,00,000/- which was sanctioned, and on 11.01.2021 a sum of ₹9,82,300/- was credited in his saving bank account No. 132901506242 which was payable with interest at the rate of 14% per annum in 60 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of ₹23,233/- each. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that after having availed of the loan the defendant did not repay the loan amount, therefore, by loan recall notice dated 25.6.2021, a copy of which is Ex.PW1/5, sent by the plaintiff by post, the plaintiff recalled the loan and after resorting to remedy under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 instituted the present suit. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having its branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the suit is maintainable, and even otherwise, in view of the provisions of section 21 of CPC the defendant cannot raise the question of territorial jurisdiction at this stage. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving its case against the defendant, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff may be allowed and a decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 7 of 23
9. Per contra, having drawn the attention of the court on the testimonies of DW1 Tripit Kumar Choudhary, PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Mohit Grover, documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 and judgment dated 17.11.2025 handed out by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO (COMM) 214/2015 entitled MTS Papers India Limited v. Spento Papers India LLP it is submitted by counsel for the defendant that the defendant did not take any loan from the plaintiff. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that as per order dated 16.3.2023 the information of filing of the present case was given to the defendant on his mobile phone number by the reader of this court as the defendant is a domicile of Munger district in Bihar and he has never visited to Delhi and the defendant has never approached the plaintiff for any type of loan. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff never executed documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4, all bearing same date and time, and not bearing his signatures, digital or otherwise, in favour of the plaintiff. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has not filed any document to prove that any part of the alleged loan transaction between the parties took place at the branch office of the plaintiff at E-3, E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that even the loan recall notice dated 25.6.2021 has not been sent from the office of the defendant at E-3, E- Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that as per the plaint the address CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 8 of 23 of the defendant is S-3, Khirki Extension, G Floor, Near Sai Mandir, Malviya Nagar, Delhi which is outside of the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that the claim of the plaintiff is false and this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
11. As per the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of PW2 Mohit Grover and document Ex.PW2/1, on 23.10.2019 the defendant got opened his savings bank account No. 132901506242 with the plaintiff bank at BMLJ House, 169, Bada Bazaar, Munger, Bihar, and subsequently, the said account was ported to the branch of the plaintiff at E-30, Saket, New Delhi-110017. According to the plaintiff, after transfer of the bank account of the defendant to E-30, Saket, New Delhi, on 09.01.2021 he applied for a loan of ₹10,00,000/-, which was sanctioned in his favour, and the amount of ₹9,82,300/- was credited to his savings bank account No. 132901506242 on 11.01.2021. The defendant denies having taken any loan from the plaintiff and has also challenged the jurisdiction of this court in entertaining the present suit.
12. As per the contents of the plaint, the defendant is resident of S3, Khirki Extension, G Floor, Near Sai Mandir, Malviya Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017 which is not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. At the time of the institution of the suit, the defendant was maintaining his saving bank account with the branch of CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 9 of 23 the plaintiff at E-30, Saket, New Delhi-110017, and the said place is also not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. As per the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of PW2 Mohit Grover, Chief Manager after sanctioning of the loan, the loan amount was credited in the savings bank account of the defendant maintained with the plaintiff bank at its branch at E-30, Saket, New Delhi. The present suit has been instituted in this court on the premise that the application for availing loan, agreement and other documents pertaining to the loan were executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this court at E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi and in this regard paragraph No. 14 of the plaint reads as follows:
14. That the application for availing loan, Agreements and other documents pertaining to the loan were executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court i.e. at E-Block, Jhandewalan extension, New Delhi, the payments were made within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and other major part of cause of action were also aroused within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, hence this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
13. Although issues in the present suit have not been framed, but both the parties have led their evidence. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta during his examination-in-chief deposed that he is authorized representative of the plaintiff bank which is having its branch at E- Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 within the jurisdiction of this court. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he has been authorized on the basis of Power of Attorney executed in his favour, a copy of which is Ex.PW1/1. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 10 of 23 deposed that the defendant is the borrower, who availed personal loan by loan agreement bearing No. LPDEL00042888708. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that on the representation and assurances made by the defendant the plaintiff bank agreed to grant the finance facility whereafter the defendant had executed a credit facility application form and undertook to comply with the terms of the agreement and assurances that he will discharge his liability towards the plaintiff bank. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that the loan documents, namely, preliminary credit application form Ex.PW1/2 and credit facility application form Ex.PW1/3 were executed by the defendant and Key Fact statement is Ex.PW1/4. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties loan amount was disbursed to the defendant on 09.01.2021 after deducting the agreed charges and the loan was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments of ₹23,233/-. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that the defendant did not pay the EMIs dues, therefore, by notice dated 25.6.2021, a copy of which is Ex.PW1/5 the loan was recalled. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of ₹13,21,836/- to the plaintiff towards the loan account which he has willfully failed to pay despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that the foreclosure statement and the certified statement of account dated 01.8.2022 is Ex.PW1/6 and certificates under the Evidence Act and the Bankers' Book Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/7 and CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 11 of 23 Ex.PW1/8.
14. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta deposed that he had been working with the plaintiff bank since 2019 as a Relationship Manager. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he did not know in which year the plaintiff bank's Jhandewalan branch was opened. During his cross- examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he was associated with the branch (E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055) since August, 2022. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he was not associated with the branch at the time of sanctioning of the loan, and the loan was disbursed in the saving account of the defendant maintained with ICICI Bank itself. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he did not know the branch of the account number of the defendant in which the loan was disbursed. During his cross- examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 were digitally signed by the defendant; and that he did not know whether digital signature certificates were taken from the defendant by the plaintiff. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he did not know whether the bank had verified the digital signature of the defendant at the time of sanctioning of the loan; and that the plaintiff did not take KYC of the defendant. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that as on date the saving account bearing No. CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 12 of 23 132901506242 of the defendant was dormant. During his cross- examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he did not know as to when the loan account of the defendant was declared as NPA. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge whether the defendant had visited the branch of the plaintiff for grant of loan. During his cross- examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that the bank has not filed the KYC document of saving bank account of the defendant; and voluntarily stated that the bank had verified the KYC at the time of opening of saving bank account. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he never met the defendant and he did not know whether the amount disbursed in the saving bank account of the defendant was withdrawn by him. During his cross- examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that the transaction ID for transfer of loan amount in the saving account was 581091970. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he had no knowledge that by which way of communication the plaintiff bank had communicated regarding disbursal of the loan to the defendant. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta after seeing document Ex.PW1/D1 deposed that digital signature of the defendant was appearing at point 'C' encircled red. During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he did not have any knowledge whether those digitally signed documents had been received by the plaintiff bank from the defendant.
CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 13 of 23 During his cross-examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he had no knowledge whether the plaintiff bank had filed any cheque bouncing case against the defendant. During his cross- examination PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta further deposed that he had no knowledge whether the bank had purchased any stamp paper in compliance of the disbursal to the defendant.
15. PW2 Mohit Grover during his examination-in-chief deposed that the defendant got opened a saving bank account No. 132901506242 in ICICI bank having code No. 1329 situated at BMLJ House, 169, Bada Bazar, Munger, Bihar on 23.10.2019 by filing up account opening form, a copy of which was Ex.PW2/1. PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he had annexed copy of Aadhar card, a copy of which is Mark-P2 with the application and the Aadhar card was authenticated after sending OTP on the number seeded with Aadhar authorities. PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that the defendant got his account ported to the plaintiff branch located at E-30, Saket, New Delhi-17. PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that after sanctioning the loan of ₹10,00,000/-, an amount of ₹9,82,300/- was credited in the saving bank account No. 132901506242 on 11.01.2021. During his examination, on 21.02.2024, having produced saving bank statement Ex.PW2/D1 PW2 Mohit Grover deposed that statement Ex.PW2/D1 was downloaded by Ms. Abhipriya Shreshtha, Deputy Manager of Saket branch of the plaintiff and her certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was Ex.PW2/D2. PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 14 of 23 the certificate under section 2A of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1891 was Ex.PW2/D3.
16. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover deposed that he was never posted in Bihar. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that at that time (on 29.01.2024) he was posted as Chief Manager in branch Shail Tower, Old Rohtak Road branch, Delhi for last two years. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that regarding signature of the defendant on Ex.PW2/1 he deposed on the basis of the record without any personal knowledge. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not know the mode by which the amount was withdrawn from the saving bank account of the defendant. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that as on date the saving bank account of the defendant was being maintained in ICICI bank Saket branch. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that that account was ported on 16.9.2020 from Munger Bihar to Saket branch, Delhi through online. During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that such request for transfer was made by the defendant as reflected in saving bank account statement w.e.f. 01.9.2020 to 30.11.202 (incomplete). During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that no document was to be uploaded for porting. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that process of porting through ICICI bank app is to first open the app after which the app ask to furnish details 'whether CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 15 of 23 the account holder is Indian or NRI'. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that after submission of response, there appear terms and conditions which are to be accepted. During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that after acceptance of terms and conditions, the app finds mention that SMS shall be sent on the registered mobile number of the customer and thereafter, the mobile app validates whether the given number is registered mobile phone number of the customer or not. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that if it is validated that it is RMN, an SMS is sent on that number showing that the number has been validated. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that thereafter the app proceeds on the further step and asks for last four digits of the debit card, validity month and year of debit card and CVV number, printed on the front and backside of the card. During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that thereafter, it asks for setting up four digit PIN or biometric verification to login the application and thereafter, the customer is logged out and he is logged in only after furnishing of four digit PIN or biometric verification. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that after such login, the app asks the customer which of the service he wanted to avail and one such service is 'changed of service branch'. During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that when request is made by the customer on mobile app of ICICI bank, the bank asks the customer to feed the digits appearing against the three letters like A, B, CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 16 of 23 C and D etc mentioned on the backside of the debit card of the customer. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that after feeding of the digits in the mobile app, the same are verified by the bank and only after verification, the OTP is sent on the registered mobile number of the customer. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that after submitting of OTP in the app by the customer, the request for porting is raised and it is ported within 24 hours of raising of request and in the case in hand, it was ported on the same date. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he was not posted in Saket branch of the plaintiff bank. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that when the saving bank account was opened by the customer in Munger branch vide customer application Ex.PW2/1, the customer had given his mobile phone as 9199789611 as mentioned at page no. 2 of the application. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that on 08.7.2024 he was directed to produce some documents and pursuant to that order, he requested the Saket branch of ICICI bank to furnish those documents and that branch sent those documents to him vide email dated 21.8.2024, a copy of which is Ex.PW2/D4. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that the initial mobile phone no. 9199789611 was changed to 7042186896 on 11.11.2019 through ATM by sending OTP on the previous RMN. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that later the mobile phone number 7042186896 was changed to 8587812708 on CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 17 of 23 30.12.2020 through ATM by sending OTP on the previous RMN. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that the proceedings regarding change of registered mobile phone numbers are Ex.PW2/D5 and his certificate under section 65B in that regard is Ex.PW2/D6. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he filed the copy of Aadhar card Ex.PW2/D7 of the defendant showing his address located in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, South Delhi-17 which was furnished by the defendant while applying the loan. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that the loan was applied on phone and so no document signed by him for loan was available with Saket branch. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that no letter regarding sanction of loan was issued by Saket branch; and voluntarily stated that sanction letters are not issued in case the loans are applied and sanctioned online. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that Saket branch did not send him any document regarding suggesting that consent was given by the defendant to the terms and conditions as are generally mentioned in sanction letter after sanctioning of the loan; and voluntarily stated that this process is followed in the case of applying for loan physically, and in the case in hand, the loan was applied online and so Saket branch was totally out of the picture as the online communication was directly between the Central Processing unit and customer on mobile phone or any other electronic gadget. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 18 of 23 further deposed that he was not aware whether except preliminary credit application form and credit application, copies of which are Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW2/3, the defendant had given any digitally or physically signed document to Saket branch while applying for loan. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not know if biometric verification of the Aadhar card of the defendant was done by the plaintiff or not; and voluntarily stated that it is not required in the case of loan like filing of ITR and it is required only in saving account. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he was never associated with the present loan at any stage. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that the defendant never signed in his presence and he never saw him. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he was deposing on the basis of record. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that copy of Aadhar card Ex.PW2/D7 was submitted by the defendant with the bank on 16.9.2020 to central processing unit online. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not know whether the Aadhar card was given by the defendant to bank physically, but service request no. SR698743831 was raised on the request of the defendant on 15.9.2020 at 03:30 p.m. and was closed by the plaintiff on 16.9.2020 at 06:07 a.m. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that during that period, the Aadhar card was uploaded by the defendant. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 19 of 23 he did not know by which mode the defendant had requested the plaintiff for change of address. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not know if the bank confirmed from the defendant through phone call whether the request for change of address was made by him or not. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not know if the changed address was physically verified or not before sanctioning the loan. During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not know whether any communication was sent to the defendant qua moratorium period. During his cross-examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he did not have personal knowledge what was the upper limit of the loan which may be sanctioned to any person for the product for which the loan was granted to the defendant. During his cross- examination PW2 Mohit Grover further deposed that he was deposing falsely.
17. From the testimonies of PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Mohit Grover it is evident that at no occasion any of them was involved in the transaction that led to the alleged grant of loan in favour of the defendant; and they were only deposing on the basis of the documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. There is nothing in the testimonies of PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Mohit Grover to suggest that the branch or the office of the plaintiff at E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 was in any manner involved in the grant of the loan in favour of the defendant.
CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 20 of 23
18. In the plaint it has been, inter alia, averred that in the month of January, 2021, the defendant approached the plaintiff and represented that he required loan facility for his personal use/business purpose; and that the defendant also represented that he was financially sound and assured that he shall be making regular payment of the loan in installments; and that the defendant provided documents, representation and references before the representative of the plaintiff to show his bona fide to the plaintiff for the same. But these facts are not borne out of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff it is also not proved that the application for availing loan, agreement and other documents pertaining to the loan were executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this court at E-Block, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, the payments were made within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and other major part of cause of action also arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, as mentioned in paragraph No. 14 of the plaint.
19. As already observed, the bank account of the defendant, as per the plaintiff itself, was initially opened at Munger, Bihar from where it was ported (transferred) to branch at E-30, Saket, New Delhi-110017 of the plaintiff bank, and as per the memo of the parties in the plaint, at the time of the institution of the suit, the defendant was living at S3, Khirki Extension, G Floor, Near Sai Mandir, Malviya Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017, and thus, at the time of the institution of the suit neither the defendant was living within the territorial jurisdiction of this CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 21 of 23 court nor he was maintaining his bank account within the jurisdiction of this court. It may be that the plaintiff is having one of its branch or offices at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, but in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MTS Papers India Limited's case (supra) only on the basis that the plaintiff is having its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, it cannot be held that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
20. At the strength of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vijay Kumar Ojha's case (supra) it is vehemently argued by counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the provisions of section 21 of CPC, the defendant at this stage cannot challenge the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
21. Section 21 of CPC, which pertains to objections to jurisdiction, reads as follows:
21. Objections to jurisdiction.--(1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 22 of 23
22. In Vijay Kumar Ojha's case (supra) the suit was not instituted in the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the plaintiff was having its office in Delhi; the contention of the plaintiff in the said case was that the defendant was having its registered office in Delhi which is permissible under section 20 of CPC. Further in the said case the defendant did not take the plea of lack of jurisdiction before or at the time of framing of issues. In the case in hand, however, issues have not been framed and the defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of this court at appropriate stage.
23. Since at the time of institution of the suit neither the defendant was residing or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this court and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, therefore, this court is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of CPC the plaint in the suit is liable to be returned. Since the defendant has appeared in the suit, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10A of CPC counsel for the plaintiff is intimated that the court is inclined to return the plaint to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. The plaintiff may make an application under Order VII Rule 10 A of CPC on or before the next date, if it so desire.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open court MANOJ by MANOJ
KUMAR
on the 12th day of February, 2026. KUMAR Date: 2026.02.13 15:04:47 +0530 (MANOJ KUMAR-1) District Judge (Commercial Court)-05, Central District: Tis Hazari: Delhi CS (COMM) No. 2197/2022 Page No. 23 of 23