Bangalore District Court
Indian Overseas Bank vs M/S. Mahajan Medical Systems on 10 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXIII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-64)
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.
PRESENT
SRI.JOSHI VENKATESH, B.A.LL.B,(Spl),
LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S. No.7736/2015
PLAINTIFF : Indian Overseas Bank,
a Body Corporate Constituted
under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking)
Act -V of 1970, having its Central Office,
At No.763, Anna Salai, Mount Road,
Chennai - 600 002, and a Branch Office
amongst other Place, Cantonment Branch,
No.38 & 39, Emerald Plaza, Dispensary
Road, BANGALORE - 560 001.
Represented by its Chief Manager and
Power of Attorney Holder,
Sri. N. Shivashankar,
S/o Late Sri. D.S. Nagarajaiah,
Aged about 57 years.
(By Sri. Gopalakrishna R. Hegde, Adv.,)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/s. Mahajan Medical Systems
Pvt.Ltd.,
By its Directors Mrs.Rita Mahajan and
Mr. Satish Mahajan,
No.126, 1st Floor, D.R.Towers,
Dispensary Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2 O.S.7736/2015
2. Mrs. Rita Mahajan,
W/o Sri. Satish Mahajan,
Aged about 50 years,
Managing Director of M/s. Mahajan
Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd.,
No.126, 1st Floor, D.R.Towers,
Dispensary Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Mr. Satish Mahajan,
S/o Sri. Gurubux Singh,
Aged about 58 years,
Director of M/s. Mahajan Medical
Systems Pvt. Ltd.,
No.126, 1st Floor, D.R.Towers,
Dispensary Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(Defendant Nos.1 to 3 placed exparte)
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff Bank filed this suit for recovery of money from the defendants praying this Court to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1, 85,445/- along with interest at the rate of 15.5% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of suit till the date of realization.
2. In the plaint it is stated by the plaintiff bank that, defendants are running a business under the name and style of "M/s. Mahajan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd.,". Defendant no.1 is the company represented by its directors Defendant No.2 and 3 approached the plaintiff bank with a 3 O.S.7736/2015 request to sanction temporary overdraft facility upto a limit of Rs.1,50,000/- to meet their immediate requirements. Accordingly plaintiff bank has sanctioned overdraft facility upto a limit of Rs.1, 50,000/-. Defendants executed on demand promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- and promised to repay the said sum with interest at 17% p.a. with monthly rests in favour of plaintiff bank. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff bank defendants failed to clear the entire dues. Thereafter recall notice was issued on 14.02.2014 calling upon the defendants to pay the entire dues. As on the date of the suit defendant's due to the plaintiff bank is sum of Rs.1,85,445/-. The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.06.2013. Accordingly prayed this Court to decree the suit of the plaintiff with cost of the suit.
3. After registering the case, the same is made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. This court after receipt of the case papers, issued summons to defendants by RPAD and they returned as served. Defendants 1 to 3 called out in the Open Court on the date of hearing. They found absent. Hence Defendants 1 to 3 placed ex-parte. 4 O.S.7736/2015
4. In order to prove the case, plaintiff bank examined its Chief Manager as PW.1 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.6 documents and closed its side. Since defendants are placed ex-parte there is no any cross examination to the evidence of PW.1 and there is no any evidence of defendants.
5. Heard the arguments of plaintiff Bank. Perused the records before the court.
6. The points arise for my consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money from defendants as sought ?
Point No.2: What order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: In order to prove the case plaintiff bank examined its Chief Manager as PW.1. PW.1 reiterated the contents of plaint averments before the Court and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.6 documents. Ex.P.1 is the letter of request of temporary over draft defendants, Ex.P.2 is on demand promissory note executed by defendants, Ex.P.3 is 5 O.S.7736/2015 true copy of notice, Ex.P.4 is postal receipt, Ex.P.5 is postal acknowledgment and Ex.P.6 is statement of accounts.
9. Evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. There is no evidence before the court to disbelieve the evidence given by PW.1 coupled with the documents exhibited by the plaintiff bank as per Ex.P.1 to P.6. If at all defendants not obtained any overdraft facility and defendants are not due to the plaintiff bank then they could have appeared before the court on the date of hearing and contested the matter. Since defendants are at fault, they fail to appear before the court to put forth their plea. Overdraft facility is sanctioned to the defendants on 27.06.2013. Suit is filed on 08.09.2015. Hence suit of the plaintiff bank is well within the period of limitation. Admittedly the transaction between the plaintiff bank and defendants is a business transaction. Hence, under the circumstances of the case, I feel plaintiff bank is entitled for the interest at rate of 15.5% p.a. on the suit claim from defendants from the date of suit till its realization. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
6 O.S.7736/2015
10. Point No.2: In view of the discussion made above and the findings given on point Nos.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Suit of the plaintiff Bank is decreed with costs of the suit.
2. Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover suit amount of Rs.1,85,445/- along with interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization from defendants 1 to 3 .
3. Defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim with interest to the plaintiff bank.
4. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th of June 2016).
(JOSHI VENKATESH), LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE.
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 - N. Shivashankar, S/o Late Sri.D.S.Nagarajaiah, 58 yrs.
2. List of witnesses examined for the defendants :
- NIL-7 O.S.7736/2015
3. List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 - Letter of request of temporary overdraft Ex.P.2 - On demand promissory note Ex.P.3 - True copy of notice Ex.P.4 - Postal receipt Ex.P.5 - Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.6 - Statement of accounts.
4. List of documents marked for the defendant :
- NIL -
5. Material object marked in this case:
- NIL -
(JOSHI VENKATESH), LXIII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.8 O.S.7736/2015