Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Ltd vs Babban Mishra on 16 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR: LD Sr.CIVIL JUDGE
cumRENT CONTROLLER: NORTH WEST: ROHINI
COURTS:DELHI.
S443/09
ICICI Bank Ltd.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
LANDMARD, RACE COURSE CIRCLE,
VADODARA390007.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO. 7, S.D. TOWER,
SECTOR08, ROHINI,
NEW DELHI110085.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. ANKUR KHOLE ........Plaintiff
vs.
Babban Mishra
S/O RAMPHAR MISHRA
10/8 GF SEC71 NOIDA201301 ............Defendant
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Briefly stated the plaintiff had filed the present suit U/o 37 CPC for recovery of an amount of Rs 2,63,120.91/ against the defendant alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 14.42 % p.a with costs.
con.....
2
3. Vide order dated 15.10.09, at the request to Ld counsel for the plaintiff, the suit was treated as ordinary suit for recovery.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant had taken loan of Rs 2,91,500/ for purchase of & against security of vehicle namely "Indica/DLS TC" bearing registration number UP 16Q 7362 vide loan cum hypothecation scheme of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant has defaulted in repayment of several equated monthly installments which was due as per the terms and agreement. It is further averred that plaintiff's bank has been forced to recall the loan facility available to the defendant and had served demand notice dated 18.09.09 upon the defendant to make payment of outstanding amount and as per the statement of account of defendant maintained with the plaintiff bank, defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs 2,63,120.91/ alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 14.42 % p.a with costs of the suit.
5. Defendant was served with summons and defendant has appeared on 20.2.10. On 10.3.10 at joint request by both the parties, the matter was referred for Mediation cell for 19.4.10. On 19.4.10, the file was received back with the report that no settlement could be con......
3 arrived at between the parties before Mediation cell and after that defendant neither appeared nor had filed any W.S. Vide order dated 05.05.10, Ld Predecessor struck off the defence of the defendant U/o 8 rule 1 CPC with limited rights to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses.
6. Plaintiff has examined its officer & AR Sh. Ankur Khole as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Defendant did not appear and the cross examination of said witness has been recorded as nil.
7. I have heard Sh S.K.Gupta Ld counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record carefully.
8. None had appeared on behalf of defendant to address final arguments.
9. PW1 has proved the copy of power of attorney in his favour as ExPW1/A. He has proved the original loan agreement ExPw1/B vide which the plaintiff had sanctioned and disbursed the loan of Rs 2,91,500/ to the defendant for purchase of aforesaid con.......
4 vehicle. He has also proved the hypothication agreement of said vehicle vide hypothication deed ExPW1/C. He has further proved the irrevocable power of attorney authorizing the plaintiff to take over the possession of said vehicle and sale the same to appropriate dues in the event of default by defendant vide ExPW1/D. He has also proved that post dated cheque issued by the defendant as EMIs for repayment were dishonoured and has deposed that inspite of repeated requests and reminders the defendant did not pay the same. He has also proved the legal notice of demand dated 18.9.09 vide ExPW1/E which was served upon the defendant vide postal receipt ExPW1/F. He has further proved the statement of account of the defendant maintained with the plaintiff bank vide ExPW1/G.
10. PW1 has deposed as per the plaint and as per the case of the plaintiff. None had appeared on behalf of defendant to cross examine and the testimony of said witness has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. The testimony of PW1 completes the chain of evidence and successfully proves the case of the plaintiff. Considering the facts and circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,63,120.91/ alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 14.42% p.a till actual realisation with costs of the suit.
con.........
5
11. Arguments on the pending application on behalf of the plaintiff U/o 39 rule 6 r/w section 151 CPC for permission to sell the aforesaid vehicle were also heard at the time of final arguments and Ld counsel for the plaintiff had stated that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the receiver ( employee of the plaintiff) pursuant to order of this court and that the same may be permitted to be sold in view of Judgment titled as Satendra prakash Agarwal vs State Bank of Indore reported in AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 285 and the plaintiff shall adjust the sell proceeds in the decreetal amount. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff is permitted to sale the aforesaid vehicle. However sale proceeds shall be adjusted in the decreetal amount.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Ashutosh Kumar) today i.e on 16.10.2010 SCJcumRC:North West Rohini Courts, Delhi IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR: LD Sr.CIVIL JUDGE cumRENT CONTROLLER: NORTH WEST: ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.
S442/09 M/S ICICI Bank LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
LANDMARD, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA390007.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO. 7, S.D. TOWER, SECTOR08, ROHINI, NEW DELHI110085.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ANKUR KHOLE ........Plaintiff vs BABBAN MISRA S/O RAMPHAR MISHRA 10/8 GF SEC71 NOIDA201301 ............Defendant JUDGMENT: 1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Briefly stated the plaintiff had filed the present suit U/o 37 CPC for recovery of an amount of Rs 251,086.66/ against the defendant alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 16.05 % p.a with costs.
Continue..........
2
3. Vide order dated 15.10.2009, at the request to Ld counsel for the plaintiff, the suit was treated as ordinary suit for recovery.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant had taken loan of Rs 325,000/ for purchase of & against security of vehicle namely 'Indica /DLS TC' bearing registration number UP16P9532 vide loan cum hypothecation scheme of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant has defaulted in repayment of several equated monthly installments which was due as per the terms and agreement. It is further averred that plaintiff's bank has been forced to recall the loan facility available to the defendant and had served demand notice dated 18.09.2009 upon the defendant to make payment of outstanding amount and as per the statement of account of defendant maintained with the plaintiff bank, defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs 251,086.66/ alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 16.05 % p.a with costs of the suit.
5. Defendant was served with summons and defendant has appeared on 26.02.2010. On 10.3.10 at joint request by both the parties, the matter was referred for Mediation cell for 19.4.10. On 19.4.10, the file was received back with the report that no settlement con......
3 could be arrived at between the parties before Mediation cell and after that defendant neither appeared nor had filed any W.S. Vide order dated 05.05.10, Ld Predecessor struck off the defence of the defendant U/o 8 rule 1 CPC with limited rights to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses.
6. Plaintiff has examined its officer & AR Sh. Ankur Khole as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Defendant did not appear and the cross examination of said witness has been recorded as nil.
7. I have heard Sh S.K.Gupta Ld counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record carefully.
8. None had appeared on behalf of defendant to address final arguments.
9. PW1 has proved the copy of power of attorney in his favour as ExPW1/A. He has proved the original loan agreement ExPw1/B vide which the plaintiff had sanctioned and disbursed the loan to the defendant for purchase of aforesaid aforesaid vehicle. He Con............
4 has also proved the hypothication agreement of said vehicle vide hypothication deed ExPW1/C. He has further proved the irrevocable power of attorney authorizing the plaintiff to take over the possession of said vehicle and sale the same to appropriate dues in the event of default by defendant vide ExPW1/D. He has also proved that post dated cheque issued by the defendant as EMIs for repayment were dishonoured and has deposed that inspite of repeated requests and reminders the defendant did not pay the same. He has also proved the legal notice of demand dated 18.09.2009 vide ExPW1/E which was served upon the defendant vide postal receipt ExPW1/F. He has further proved the statement of account of the defendant maintained with the plaintiff bank vide ExPW1/G.
10. PW1 has deposed as per the plaint and as per the case of the plaintiff. None had appeared on behalf of defendant to cross examine and the testimony of said witness has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. Suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. The testimony of PW1 completes the chain of evidence and successfully proves the case of the plaintiff. Considering the facts and circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 251,086.66/ alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 16.05% p.a till actual realisation with costs of the suit.
Con..................
5
11. Arguments on the pending application on behalf of the plaintiff U/o 39 rule 6 r/w section 151 CPC for permission to sell the aforesaid vehicle were also heard at the time of final arguments and Ld counsel for the plaintiff had stated that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the receiver ( employee of the plaintiff) pursuant to order of this court and that the same may be permitted to be sold in view of Judgment titled as Satendra prakash Agarwal vs State Bank of Indore reported in AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 285 and the plaintiff shall adjust the sell proceeds in the decreetal amount. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff is permitted to sale the aforesaid vehicle. However sale proceeds shall be adjusted in the decreetal amount.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Ashutosh Kumar) today i.e on 16.10.2010 SCJcumRC:North West Rohini Courts, Delhi S442/09 & 443/09 ICICI Bank Ltd . Vs Babban Mishra 16.10.10 Present: Sh S.K.Gupta Ld counsel for the Plaintiff.
Vide separate Judgment of even date, dictated to the Stenographer & announced in the open court, suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Ashutosh Kumar) SCJcumRC:NW:Rohini Courts, Delhi.