Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

( vs Prem Kumar Jha on 25 July, 2011

          IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR CCJ/ARC
                                           ROHINI  COURTS : DELHI



 SUIT No.      167/09

ICICI BANK LTD. 

Through Mr. Ankur Khole 

Constituted Attorney 

of the Bank having its Registered office at 

"Landmark", Race Course Circle ,

 Vadodra ­390007.

Having its Branch Office at :

Plot No. 7,  S.D.Tower, 

Sector 08, Rohini, New Delhi ­110085.

                                                                       (PLAINTIFF)

                           Versus

    Prem Kumar Jha 

    S/o Mandir Nath

    R/o B­96 B, Ist Floor, Raj Nagar­II, 

           Palam Colony, New Delhi 110045

    Also At :­

    K­754, OBC Building, 

    Vasant Kung Road, Mahipal Pur 37

                                                                       (DEFENDANT)

167/09                                                                               1
       Date of filing of  suit                         :     03.02.2009


      Date for reserving for orders            :    25.07.2011

    Date of pronouncement of orders      :    25.07.2011



                                          JUDGMENT 

1. By way of this Order I shall announce Ex­parte final judgment .

The facts of the case in brief is as under :­ The plaintiff is a bank and is a body corporate incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956. The defendant is a borrower and has approached the plaintiff for grant of loan of Rs. 3,86,000/­ against this security of vehicle namely, 'Sumo/Victa LX' under the loan cum hypothication scheme of the plaintiff bank . Defendant had entered into Credit Facility Application alongwith the terms and conditions for the said facility, deed of hypothication an irrevocable power of attorney with the plaintiff bank. The defendant agreed to repay the said loan in 59 equated monthly installments with interest. Considering the requests of the defendant, the loan of Rs. 3,86,000/­ was sanctioned . The defendant agreed to repay the said loan with interest in 59 equated installments of Rs. 8,310/­ each. The vehicle in question purchased by the defendant was hypothicated in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant, however did not pay the installments in time. A legal notice was also given by the plaintiff , however no payment have been paid hence this suit. 167/09 2

2. It is important to mention here that earlier in this case the defendant was present. The defendant was not present on 19.02.2011 despite several calls since morning. Vide order dated 19.02.2011 he was proceeded Ex­parte and Ex­parte issues were framed on the same day .

3. Following issues have been framed for determination of ex­ parte evidence .

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery as prayed for, alongwith interest?

Any other relief?'

4. Plaintiff has examined only one witness in his ex­ parte evidence i.e. Authorised Representative Mr. Alok Parashar . Mr. Alok Parashar , AR of the plaintiff has stated that a loan of Rs. 3,86,000/­ was sanctioned in the name of defendant for the security of the vehicle namely "Sumo/Victa LX". This loan was to be paid in 59 equated installments of Rs. 8,310/­ each. Various documents were executed in between the parties. The original credit facility agreement form is Ex. PW 1/1. Original deed of hypothication is Ex. PW 1/2. Irrevocable power of attorney is Ex. PW 1/3. Defendant has defaulted in repayment of 59 equated monthly installments , therefore, plaintiff bank has recalled the loan facility available to defendant. A demand notice dated 06.09.2008 was also given to the defendant . The certified statement of account has also 167/09 3 been filed by the plaintiff which is Ex. PW 1/4. The copy of the legal notice is Ex. PW 1/5. It is further stated by the AR of the plaintiff bank that no payment has been made which is outstanding due as per the statement of account.

5. Final arguments heard at length. Record perused thoroughly. From the perusal of the record it is already stated above that defendant is Ex­parte . The evidence led by the plaintiff is therefore, uncontroverted and duly corroborated. The suit is also shown by the plaintiff to be filed within the period of limitation. There is nothing on record from which contrary view can be taken against the plaintiff, therefore, the evidence led by the plaintiff is to be considered accordingly as per the law. The plaintiff, therefore, has been able to discharge the burden of proving the issue no. 1 in his favour. Issue no 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant. Thus, he is entitled for the decree . Therefore plaintiff is entitle for the recovery of Rs. 28,96,08/­ alongwith interest pendent lite & future @ 8% per annum till realisation alongwith cost.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Court                                                          (Prashant Kumar)
Dated  25.07.2011                                                           CCJ­cum­ARC/North­West
                                                                                   Rohini Courts,  Delhi 


167/09                                                                                                      4
 Suit No.    167/09



    25.07.2011 Present :      Counsel for plaintiff. 

                                        Defendant ex­parte. 

                                         Ex­parte final arguments heard. 

Ex­parte final judgement is pronounced vide separate order sheet. Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room.

(Prashant Kumar) CCJ­cum­ARC/North­West Rohini Courts/Delhi 25.07.2011 167/09 5