Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Rajesh Kumar on 19 November, 2024
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West,
Tis Hazari Extension Building, Delhi
In re:
CS (COMM) 410/2024
CNR No. DLWT01-004149-2024
State Bank of India
Jeevan Tara Building Branch,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001 ...... Plaintiff
Vs.
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ratan Lal
R/o WZ-373, 80 Yard, Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018
Also at :
Junior Clerk in Northern Railways,
Divisional Railway Manager's Office,
State Entry Road,
New Delhi-110055 ..... Defendant
Date of institution : 09.05.2024
Date of arguments : 19.11.2024
Date of judgment : 19.11.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a 'commercial suit' for recovery of ₹15,48,827/- (Fifteen Lakh Forty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Seven) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 11.10% per annum.
2. The dispute between the parties is a 'commercial dispute' within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA), as the dispute arises out of a transaction relating to banker/financer. Pre- Institution Mediation & Settlement between the parties remained Judgment dated 19.11.2024; CS (COMM) 410/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-004149-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 1 of 5 2 unsuccessful vide a Non-Starter Report dated 05.03.2024 of the concerned District Legal Services Authority.
3. Despite being duly served, the defendant did not file any written statement within 120 days from the date of his service. The defendant was served through post on 17.05.2024 and personally on 18.05.2024. Law is well settled that in a commercial suit beyond 120 days, a defendant cannot be permitted to file written statement on record and the defendant forfeits his right to file WS on expiry of 120 days from the date of his service. In this regard, one may place reliance upon the case of SCG Contracts (India) Pvt Ltd Vs K.S Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2019) 12 SCC 210.
4. After defendant failed to prefer the WS within the maximum prescribed limit, his defence was struck off and the matter was heard as to why judgment should not be passed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
5. Order 8 Rule 10 CPC provides that where a defendant fails to file WS, the Court shall pronounce the judgment against the defendant or make such order in relation to the suit as the Court deems fit. Under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, upon failure of a defendant filing written statement on record within the stipulated period, the plaintiff becomes entitled to judgment. Law is now well settled that though the word 'shall' is used in the said provision, but it is directory and not mandatory. Nevertheless, the facts of this case do require this Court to pass a judgment against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. This court is satisfied that there is no fact that is required or needs to be proved by the plaintiff on account of deemed admission. The plaint is supported by the statement of truth/affidavit of the plaintiff.
6. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in various cases has opined that even in those cases where a defendant is proceeded ex-parte, there is no need to record Judgment dated 19.11.2024; CS (COMM) 410/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-004149-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 2 of 5 3 plaintiff evidence as the plaint is supported with an affidavit and statement of truth. In this regard one may rely upon Parsvnath Developers Limited Versus Vikram Khosla 2021: DHC: 812; 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3147; Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra and Estates Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 54 PTC 419 (Del).
7. Brief facts of the case are, that the plaintiff bank extended personal loan of Rs. 13 Lakh to the defendant on 21.10.2021 on an interest of 11.10% per annum. The loan was repayable in 72 EMIs of ₹ 24,811/- each commencing from 01.11.2021. Loan account no. 40521895999 was opened. The defendant also executed necessary documents in this regard as contained in para 4 of the plaint. Additionally, the defendant agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% per annum in the case of default. The defendant defaulted in repayment of loan. Loan account was declared NPA on 19.07.2022. Legal Notice dated 01.01.2024 sent to the defendant did not evoke any response. As per the plaintiff, as on 29.12.2023 a sum of ₹ 15,06,240/- was due and on this amount the plaintiff has added interest @ 12% per annum for the period 29.12.2023 till 23.03.2024 to the tune of ₹ 42,587/-, which makes the total suit amount. The plaintiff also prays pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 23.03.2024 till realisation.
8. The original loan application form and other documents are already placed on record by the plaintiff. There is no reason as to why judgment in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC should not be passed in this matter. Statement of account which has been placed on record with necessary certificates reveal that the last payment made by the defendant was on 07.12.2022 for a sum of ₹ 24,842/-.
9. Suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. The personal loan was repayable in 72 EMIs w.e.f. 01.11.2021 and the last payment made by the Judgment dated 19.11.2024; CS (COMM) 410/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-004149-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 3 of 5 4 defendant was on 07.12.2022. The suit has been preferred on 09.05.2024, therefore it is within limitation.
10. This Court also has territorial jurisdiction. The defendant resides/works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court also has pecuniary jurisdiction.
11. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is entitled to be decreed. Perusal of the statement of account reveals that in the suit amount the plaintiff has included penalty amount of ₹ 75,415/-. The calculation sheet annexed by the plaintiff reveals that as on 29.12.2023 a sum of ₹ 12,26,659/- was due in the account of the defendant as also interest of ₹ 2,04,166/- was due which makes the total amount to be ₹ 14,30,825/- (exclusive of ₹ 75,415/-). If interest of ₹ 42,587/- for the period 29.12.2023 to 23.03.2024 is added on the above mentioned amount, the total comes to ₹ 14,73,412/-. The plaintiff is entitled to the said principal sum adjudged, exclusive of the penal interest.
12. Under section 34 of CPC, in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, and with further interest as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. Where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Judgment dated 19.11.2024; CS (COMM) 410/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-004149-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 4 of 5 5
13. In this regard, one may place reliance upon the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, wherein it is held in para 3 that Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by the Court.
14. Latest Reserve Bank of India Lending and Deposit Rates of Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs) qua weighted average lending rate (WALR) on outstanding Rupee loans of SCBs, is 9.91 per cent.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court in the given facts & circumstances, interest @ 9% per annum from 23.03.2024 till realization shall meet the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of ₹ 14,73,412/- (Fourteen Lakh Seventy-Three Thousand Four Hundred Twelve) with Simple interest @ 9% per annum from 23.03.2024 till realization. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. A copy of the judgment be supplied to the plaintiff as well as the defendant through electronic modes in compliance of Order 20 Rule 1(1) of CPC.
19. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on 19th day of November, 2024. Digitally DIG signed by DIG VINAY SINGH VINAY Date:
2024.11.19 SINGH 14:17:21 +1200 Dig Vinay Singh District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi (r) Judgment dated 19.11.2024; CS (COMM) 410/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-004149-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 5 of 5