Delhi District Court
Vijaya Bank vs Suresh Kumar on 22 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, DISTRICT JUDGE-15,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-004677-2016
CS DJ No. 17383/2016
Index to the case
Sr. No. Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda Page No.
1. FACTS OF PLAINT 2 to 5
2. WRITTEN STATEMENT 5 to 6
3. REPLICATION 6
4. ISSUES 6
5. EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF 6 to 7
6. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 7 to 13
7. CONCLUSION 13
Vijaya Bank/Bank of Baroda
A body corporate incorporated
(under the Banking Companies)
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1980 having its head office at Bangalore,
and a branch office at Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
Through its Chief Manager
Sh. Vinod Kumar.
(AS PER AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES)
Bank of Baroda
Branch office at 6926/33,
Near Jaipuria Mills, Ward No.1,
Sabji Mandi, Kamla Nagar,
New Delhi-110007.
...Plaintiff.
CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 1 of 13
Versus
Sh. Suresh Kumar
Prop. M/s. Satguru Manufactures and Traders
C-14, Double Storey,
Malka Ganj, Delhi. ...Defendant.
Date of Filing : 07.05.2016
Date of Arguments : 17.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 8,45,698/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18.75 % and costs.
FACTS OF THE PLAINT
2. That the plaintiff bank is a body corporate duly incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 having its head office at Bangalore and a Microfinance branch amongst others at Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
3. That the present suit is filed through Sh. Vinod Kumar, working as Chief Manager with Kamla Nagar branch, Delhi, who is duly constituted attorney and principal officer of the plaintiff bank, and as such is fully competent to institute the present suit, sign and verify all pleadings, vakalatnama etc. as attorney and also being one of the principal officer.
4. That the defendant is the proprietor of M/s. Satguru CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 2 of 13 Manufacturers and Traders.
5. That the defendant approached the plaintiff bank at their Kamla Nagar branch for grant of cash credit loan for a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs and a term loan of Rs. 6 Lacs.
6. That the loan of Rs. 6 Lacs was released in favour of the defendant on 29.04.2024 and a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs was released on 16.07.2024.
7. That the said facility was sanctioned and released after due execution of certain documents dated 29.04.2014 and 16.07.2014 in favour of the bank.
8. That the said CCH Facility was granted to the defendant for a period of one year and the term loan was supposed to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 13,400/- each.
9. That the defendant started defaulting in making the payment and the account as such became irregular and was declared NPA w.e.f. 28.07.2015 as per RBI guidelines.
10. That the notice dated 27.10.2015 was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff bank, inspite of which the outstanding amount was not paid by the defendant.
11. That as per the statement of account maintained by plaintiff bank, an aggregate sum of Rs. 8,45,698/- was outstanding as on 28.07.2015 i.e. the date of NPA (Rs. 5,38,147/92 against term loan account no. 600708561000001 and a sum of Rs. 3,07,550/68 CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 3 of 13 against CCH account bearing no. 600706211000030) with further interest to be calculated w.e.f. 28.07.2015 @ 18.75% p.a. on this amount till realization.
12. That the cause of action for filing the present suit firstly arose on 29.04.2014 and 16.07.2014 when the loan documents were executed by the defendant and on subsequent dates, when the defendant acknowledged its liability by making part payments on various dates and further various dates when the plaintiff bank requested the defendant to pay outstanding amount and on issuance of notice for demand.
13. That the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees upon relief claimed is Rs. 10,670/-.
14. Hence, the present suit.
15. That the present suit was filed on 07.05.2016 and summons for settlement of the issues were issued to the defendant on the same day.
16. The defendant could not be served by ordinary process and he was served by way of publication in newspaper "Rastriya Sahara", however, the defendant did not put his appearance before the Court. As such, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.11.2016.
17. That thereafter, ld. Counsel for defendant put her appearance on behalf of the defendant and she filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.11.2016 and the ex-parte order CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 4 of 13 dated 04.11.2016 was set aside by the Court vide order dated 15.11.2017.
18. That the defendant filed his WS on 06.08.2018 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS. The delay was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- upon the defendant to be paid to the plaintiff.
19. That on 22.04.2019, Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff bank Vijaya Bank is merged in the bank of Baroda w.e.f. 01.04.2019 vide gazette notification.
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE DEFENDANT
20. That the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts.
21. That the excessive amount of interest has been levied including penal interest without there being any fault on part of the defendant.
22. That at the time of granting loan to the defendant, the plaintiff bank had obtained the signatures of the defendant on a number of blank and printed documents (in very small words/font) without explaining the contents of the same to the defendant and they are misusing the said documents.
23. That the statement of account filed by the plaintiff bank is false and fabricated and the plaintiff bank had not deducted the amounts received by them from time to time from the defendant.
CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 5 of 13
24. That no demand notice has been received by the defendant from the plaintiff bank.
25. That the suit filed by the plaintiff bank is false, frivolous, malafide and without any substance or cause of action, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
26. That the suit is time barred.
27. The defendant, on reply on merits denied the allegations levelled by the plaintiff bank.
REPLICATION BY THE PLAINTIFF BANK
28. The plaintiff bank, in his replication, denied the preliminary objections taken by the defendant.
29. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 14.01.2020 :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs. 8,45,698/-, as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint?
OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest? If so, at what
rate and for which period? OPP
(3) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF BANK
30. The plaintiff bank examined Sh. Vijay Kumar in his evidence.
CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 6 of 13
31. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) GPA executed in favour of the witness by the plaintiff bank is Ex. PW-1/A.
(ii) Power of attorney executed in favour of Sh. Vinod Kumar is Ex. PW-1/B.
(iii) Original loan documents executed by defendant are Ex.
PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/G.
(iv) Office copy of notice sent on 27.10.2015 is Ex. PW-1/H.
(v) Statement of accounts maintained by plaintiff bank is Ex.
PW-1/I.
(vi) Certificate u/s. 65-B Evidence Act is Ex. PW-1/J.
32. Thereafter, PE was closed by the plaintiff bank.
33. The defendant stopped appearing and he again was proceeded ex-
parte vide order dated 28.03.2024.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
34. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the plaintiff bank and perused the judicial record.
35. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 & 21. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.
8,45,698/-, as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint? OPP & (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 7 of 13
36. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. In order to prove this issue, PW-1 deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved the GPA executed in favour of PW-1 by the plaintiff bank as Ex. PW-1/A, Power of attorney executed in favour of Sh. Vinod Kumar as Ex. PW-1/B, Original loan documents executed by defendant as Ex. PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/G, Office copy of notice sent on 27.10.2015 as Ex. PW-1/H, Statement of accounts maintained by plaintiff bank is Ex. PW-1/I and Certificate u/s. 65- B Evidence Act as Ex. PW-1/J.
37. Ex. PW-1/C is a promissory cum demand note dated 29.04.2014 wherein defendant Suresh Kumar has specifically acknowledged his joint and several liability to pay the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs. 6 Lacs at an interest @11.05 p.a. with monthly rests.
38. The note was duly executed for and on behalf of M/s. Satguru Manufacturers and Trader by the defendant under his signatures on a revenue stamp.
39. A letter of repayment dated 16.07.2014 Ex. PW-1/E, issued by the defendant Suresh Kumar as sole proprietor of M/s. Satguru Manufacturers and Traders, reflects that he had further agreed to pay the credit loan facility of Rs. 3 Lacs given to proprietorship firm in monthly installments.
40. This repayment letter Ex. PW-1/D is duly supported with Demand cum Promissory note dated 16.07.2014, wherein again the defendant has specifically acknowledged his joint liability to pay the plaintiff bank to pay a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs at the same interest CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 8 of 13 rates and rests.
41. This demand note was duly executed by the defendant on behalf of M/s. Satguru Manufacturers and Trader, in his capacity as sole proprietor.
42. The credit loan facility availed by the defendant no.1 is further substantiated with written 'Agreement for demand cash credit' dated 16.07.2014 against hypothecation of stocks and book debts executed between M/s. Satguru Manufacturers and Trader and the plaintiff bank on a non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/-.
43. The agreement is duly executed and signed by the defendant wherein again the parties had agreed to avail cash credit facility for an amount not exceeding Rs. 3 Lacs in aggregate amongst other terms.
44. The statement of account of M/s. Satguru Manufacturers and Trader, from 03.06.2014 to 13.04.2016, filed on record by the plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/I, reflects an entry of Rs. 6 Lacs and Rs. 3 Lacs disbursed in its account of M/s. Satguru Manufacturers and Traders with customer ID No. 106405604 from the plaintiff bank.
45. The statement of account has been duly certified to be true entries made in the account maintained by the bank in the ordinary course of the business. It bears the stamp and signature of concerned bank official.
46. On the contrary, defendant in his WS has taken some objections to the claim of the plaintiff bank, primarily on the account of excessive rate of interest which he claims to be penal in nature, CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 9 of 13 and that the officials of the plaintiff bank had taken his signatures on number of blank and printed, in very small word font, documents without explaining the contents thereof.
47. The defendant also stated that the plaintiff bank has not deducted the amounts received by them from time to time from the defendant towards the payment of the loan facility.
48. Reading the WS of the defendant as a whole, it becomes evident that the defendant is not disputing the loan of Rs. 6 Lacs and Rs. 3 Lacs disbursed to his sole proprietorship firm.
49. The defendant has taken objection only with respect to the interest component and some amounts paid by him which has not been credited/adjusted by the plaintiff bank.
50. In the given circumstances, it was incumbent upon the defendant to lead positive evidence to show that he has signed blank documents and/or the typed documents which were illegible or the payments made by him towards the loan which allegedly has not been adjusted in terms of Section 101 to 103 BSA, 2023.
51. A useful reference be made to the decision of Bharat Barrel and Drum MFG, Co. vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that once the execution of the documents is admitted, the burden is on the person alleging that it was misused or was without consideration.
52. A person cannot ordinarily escape liability by simply saying that he had signed blank papers. It is upon him who asserts the said CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 10 of 13 fact to prove it by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Oral assertions are not sufficient nor would it serve any purpose.
53. And, in the present case, as noted above, defendant though had filed WS but thereafter, has chosen deliberately not to appear to contest the case. No evidence, of any nature, has been led by the defendant.
54. Defendant has not even denied the execution of the documents pertaining to credit loan facility and the amounts of loan so disbursed thereto in his WS.
55. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, appreciating the evidence so led by the plaintiff on record, which has remained unrebutted, and the Written Statement of defendant which tantamounts to admissions of the loan amount, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.8,45,698/-.
INTEREST COMPONENT
56. The question as to what interest is to be granted in the recovery suits was dealt with and considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Bank of India vs. Ravinder, wherein the Hon'ble Court answered the reference in terms as under :-
(i) Subject to a binding stipulation contained in a voluntary contract between the parties and/or an established practice or usage interest on loans and advances may be charged on periodical rests and also capitalized on remaining unpaid. The principal sum actually advanced coupled with the interest on periodical rests so capitalized is capable CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 11 of 13 of being adjudged as principal sum on the date of the suit.
(ii) The principal sum so adjudged is 'such principal sum' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on which interest pendentelite and future interest i.e. post-
decree interest, at such rate and for such period which the Court may deem fit, may be awarded by the Court.
(iii) Interest is not a penalty but is the compensation payable by the borrower to the lender for the deprivation for use of money.
(iv) Charging of interest on unpaid interest/compound interest is not per-say illegal but subject to specific contract, usage or statutory provision permitting it.
(v) Rate of interest is excessive or its capitalization is inequitable or is violative of law/RBI guidelines Court has power to reopen the transaction and grant relief accordingly.
(vi) Banks are entitled to charge interest with periodical rests (quarterly/half yearly etc., if permitted by directives of RBI or contractual terms.
(vii) Under Section 34 CPC, Court has discretion to award the interest on the principle sum adjudged, but not on the interest that had accrued after the date of decree.
57. Reading these guidelines, in the given facts of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate and justified, to grant interest at the rate of 9% p.a. pendentelite on the decreetal amount till its realization. Whereas, the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ of contractual agreement till the time filing of the suit.
WITH RESPECT TO JURISDICTION
58. Undisputedly, the suit is commercial in nature, as such the loan was advanced for commercial purpose to the sole proprietorship firm of the defendant. However, suit was filed in the year 2016 for recovery of amount of Rs. 8,45,698/-, prior to coming into effect of amendment of Commercial Courts Act in the year 2018, and the relief sought by the plaintiff is lower than Rs. 1 Crore.
CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 12 of 13
59. The issue at hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satyanarayan Khandelwal v. Prem Arora, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2142, wherein the Hon'ble High Court after discussing the Commercial Courts Act, Amendment Act of 2018 especially Section 19 of the Amending Act, held that the amendment so carried out vide Amending Act, 2018 shall not be applicable to the pending Commercial Disputes in terms thereof, and the suit less than Rs. 1 Crore and more than Rs. 3 Lacs so filed during this interregnum period shall not be transferred to Commercial Courts.
60. Thereby, it cannot be said that the suit being commercial in nature, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit.
CONCLUSION/RELIEF
61. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
Hence, a decree of Rs.8,45,698/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
62. Cost of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff.
63. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
64. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL ANTIL
Date:
ANTIL 2025.09.22
15:23:27 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANIL ANTIL)
on 22.09.2025. DJ-15, Central District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
CS No. 17383/2016 Vijaya Bank @ Bank of Baroda vs. Suresh Kumar Page No. 13 of 13