Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs S.K. Jain on 25 May, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI D.C. ANAND:
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI.
Suit No.156/06
State Bank of India
having its Central Office at
Madam Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai
and one of the Local Head Office
at 11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110 023.
and one of its Branches at South
Extension Part II, New Delhi
which is under the administrative
control of the Local Head Office
at New Delhi. .............. Plaintiff
vs.
1. S.K. Jain,
Proprietor HIS "N" HER
K-8, South Extension Part-I,
New Delhi.
Also at
203 - 204, First Floor, Katra Nawab,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110 006.
Also at
C - 72, First Floor, Defence Colony,
New Delhi.
2
2. Mr. B.B. Kumar,
R/o KH-146, Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
............ Defendants.
SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF Rs. 3,09,939/-
JUDGMENT
1. Tersely, the plaintiff pleaded that plaintiff's bank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and Local Office at New Delhi as well as Branch office at South Extension Part- II, New Delhi, under the administrative control of the Head Office/ Zonal Office at Parliament Street, New Delhi. Shri S.K. Bhatia is the authorised person by the concerned officer of the local head office to institute, file and present the suit being posted as Assistant General Manager and also principal officer of the State Bank of 3 India, South Extension Part II, New Delhi, in terms of General Regulations 76 and 77 of the SBI under sub-section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 read with gazette notifications.
2. Defendant No.1 as a borrower and defendant no.2 as a guarantor approached the plaintiff for grant of Cash Credit Limit Facility and the plaintiff agreed to grant financial accommodation on Cash Credit Limit basis to the defendant to the tune of Rs.3 Lacs on 22.7.2003 against documents executed by the defendants. The defendants agreed to repay the said loan amount with interest @ 4% per annum below the SBI advance rate rising and falling therewith a minimum of 10.25% per annum calculated on daily balance payable by the borrowers of the bank and charged 4 in account on the last working day of each month in accordance with the practice of the bank. The present effective rate is 10.25% per annum with quarterly rests.
3. The defendant availed the Cash Credit Limit Facility, but failed to carry out the terms of the agreement/ documents executed by them including hypothecation agreement dated 22.7.2003, Pronote of even date, DP Note, letter dated 22.7.2003. The defendant had also agreed to get the stock inspected by the plaintiff bank and also to submit true statement thereof. Plaintiff bank has been maintaining the accounts of the defendant in the account books in which all entries of outgoing and incoming amount are duly entered in the Cash Credit (Stock) Account No.01660/155105 and the said books of account 5 are admissible in evidence under Banking Evidence Act. It was further stated by the plaintiff that on 3.10.2005, the outstanding balance was Rs.2,95,019.41 including interest upto 3.10.2005 and interest from 4.10.2005 and 31.3.2006 works out to Rs.14,919.59. In this way, as on the date of filing the suit, an aggregate amount of Rs.3,09,939/- together with interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum up to 31.3.2006 and interest for the subsequent period with monthly rest is due and payable by the defendant by way of principal, interest and other charges. The defendants are liable to pay the said amount with interest @ 10.25% per annum with monthly rests, till payment or realization.
4. The legal notice dated 23.7.2005 and 02.3.2006 sent to the defendants failed to yield any result as 6 the defendants failed to pay the due amount.
5. The plaintiff further stated that the defendants removed the hypothecated goods from the tenanted premises and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the hypothecated goods, if traced. Plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs.3,09,939/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, failing which interest @ 10.25% per annum with monthly rests pendentelite and future and till realization of the decretal amount with costs.
6. The Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons by affixation as well as by publication in the daily newspaper 'Statesman' dated 15.2.2007 and as such the defendants are proceeded ex parte on 02.3.2007.
7. The plaintiff filed an affidavit of Shri G.P. Chawla, Deputy Manager of the plaintiff's bank at 7 South Extension Part-II, who is also examined as PW1.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel of plaintiff and have perused the evidence on record and documents carefully.
9. Plaintiff's witness substantiated the averments of the plaint in toto in the affidavit filed in evidence, which was duly sworn before the Oath Commissioner appointed by the Delhi High Court. The witness also deposed that the suit has been filed by a duly authorised and competent person in whose favour gazette notification is also there in existence. Besides, he proved the hypothecation agreement as Ex.PW1/1, Guarantee Agreement signed by defendant no.2 as Ex.PW1/2, Pronote and DP Note executed by the defendant as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. The plaintiff also 8 proved the statement of account of the defendant as Ex.PW1/5 for the period 22.7.2003 to 31.10.2005 showing balance of the amount payable by the defendant as Rs.3,09,939/-. The plaintiff also proved the certificate of Computer Incharge as well as Shri S.K. Bhatia about the computerised statement of account as Ex.PW1/6. Notice dated 23.7.2005 is proved as Ex.PW1/7, while the notice dated 2.3.2006 is proved as Ex.PW1/8 making demand of outstanding amount from the defendants as Rs.2,95,019.41, which is included interest up to 3.10.2005 which the defendants failed to pay. The registration slip and UPC of the notice are also proved as Ex.PW1/9.
10. Uncontroverted, unchallenged and unrebutted evidence as brought on record by the plaintiff has proved the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 9 failed to adhere to the hypothecation agreement and also failed to pay the balance amount due against them as shown in the statement of claim up to 31.3.2006 as Rs.3,09,939/-, which include interest from 4.10.2005 to 31.3.2006 i.e. Rs.14,919.59. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed for a sum of Rs.3,09,939/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum with costs of the suit. Decree Sheet be drawn only after filing of gazette notification in favour of Shri S.K. Bhatia, under whose name and signature the plaint was filed as authorised person. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
Dated: 25.5.2007.
(D.C. ANAND) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:
DELHI.