Delhi District Court
Branch Office At vs M/S A.K. & I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 29 May, 2017
In the Court of Ms. Vineeta Goyal: Additional District Judge-03
(South District) Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
Suit No.: 87148/16
CNR No : DLST01-005136-2015
In the matter of :-
Canara Bank
112, J.C. Road, Banglore
Branch office at
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi ......Plaintif
VERSUS
1. M/s A.K. & I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & ors
67, Roopam, AGK Marg
Worli Sea Face
Mumbai-400 018
2. Mukesh Gupta (Director)
S/o Sh. Mahesh Gupta
M/s A.K. & I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & ors
67, Roopam, AGK Marg
Worli Sea Face
Mumbai-400 018
3. Ms. Nutan Gupta (Director)
W/o Sh. Mukesh Gupta
M/s A.K. & I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & ors
67, Roopam, AGK Marg
Worli Sea Face
Mumbai-400 018
All Also at
IB-W, 329, Shivalik
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017 .....Defendants
Date of institution : 24.09.2015
Reserved for Judgment : 17.05.2017
Date of decision : 29.05.2017
CS No: 87148/16 Page no. 1 of 4
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Appearance: Sh. J.K. Jha, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendants ex-parte.
J U D G M E N T (Ex-parte)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.6,24,763/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three only) alongwith pendente-lite and future interest.
2. Facts are that the plaintiff has filed this suit stating that defendant company is maintaining a current account in the plaintiff bank through its Directors i.e. defendant no. 2 and 3. During the course of business, defendants requested for temporary current overdraft facility for total amount of Rs.3,38,221/- which was granted and defendants issued cheque no. 28820 and 858706. Upon clearing of these cheques, temporary clean overdraft was created in the account of the defendants by the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank debited its account on 31.07.2012 and 31.09.2012, which is reflected in the statement of accounts. The defendants thereafter did not make any deposit in their account and the current overdrawing permitted by the plaintiff bank remained unadjusted, the outstanding kept increasing on account of application of interest from time to time. Now, the total amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff bank is Rs.6,24,763/- which included principal, interest and other charges upto 30.08.2015. The plaintiff after exhausting all the avenues available to them for realization of the loan amount due from the defendants, issued CS No: 87148/16 Page no. 2 of 4 legal notice dated 24.08.2014, but, the defendants have failed to make the payments. Hence this suit.
3. Defendants were served by way of publication, however, none has entered appearance for the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 08.09.2016. The plaintiff was directed to produce ex-parte evidence.
4. The plaintiff examined only one witness. PW1 Ravinder Kumar Bhatt, Senior Manager of plaintiff bank filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and also produced the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4.
5. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.
6. The plaintiff examined Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bhatt, Senior Manager of the plaintiff bank as PW1 and in his affidavit of evidence, he has reiterated the same facts as stated in the plaint. PW1 has exhibited current account opening form as Ex. PW1/2 and board resolution Ex. PW1/3. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said exhibits are not executed by the defendants or to suggest that PW1 is not credible. In addition to that, defendants neither appeared not contested the suit for the reasons best known to them and preferred to proceed ex-parte. It is settled law that if the pleadings are not denied by the defendants, the same are deemed to be admitted. Further, PW1, during his evidence by way of affidavit, has exhibited the statement of accounts of defendant as Ex. PW1/4. A perusal of CS No: 87148/16 Page no. 3 of 4 the said exhibit reveals that defendant has defaulted the repayment of outstanding amount and has paid an amount of Rs.3000/- only on 16.09.2015.
7. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte and no evidence was led by them and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on un-challenged, un-controverted and un-rebutted.
8. In the light of evidence produced by PW1, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs.6,24,763/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three only). The plaintiff is further entitled to interest @6% per annum on the principal amount i.e. Rs.3,38,221/- from the date of decree till the date of its realization. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favor of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Pronounced in the Open Court
on 29.05.2017 (Vineeta Goyal)
Additional District Judge-03
South District: Saket: New Delhi
CS No: 87148/16 Page no. 4 of 4