Delhi District Court
Aye Finance Pvt Ltd vs Sunil Jangid on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Anshul Mehta, DJS
CS No. -: 1191/2023
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030022962023
In the matter of -
AYE FINANCE PVT. LTD.
M-5, Magnum House-1, Opp.
Milan Cinema, Hemwati Nandan
Bahuguna Mark, Karampura, Delhi.
......... Plaintiff
VS
SUNIL JANGID
R/o 727, Pratap Nagar Aam Ka Talam
Gulab Badi Shakti Nagar Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
......... Defendant
1. Date of Institution : 10.12.2023
2. Date of Reserving Order : 13.11.2025
3. Date of Decision : 13.11.2025
4. Decision : Decreed
Digitally
signed by
ANSHUL
ANSHUL MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
Argued by -: Ms. Sakshi Bhargava, Ld. counsel for plaintiff. 2025.11.13
16:47:14
+0530
Defendant already proceeded ex-parte.
JUDGEMENT -
1. The present suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC, however, vide order dated 13.09.2023, the same was converted to the ordinary suit for recovery. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff CS SCJ No. 1191/2023 Aye Finance Vs. Sunil Jangid Page No. 1 of 6 as emanating from the plaint is that the Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of extending financial assistance by way of loans and advances to the business owners for the expansion of their business among other portfolios; that the Plaintiff has executed a Board of Resolution /Power of Attorney, in favor of Pranav Sharma (Manager), of the Plaintiff to do all acts on behalf of the Plaintiff to sign, verify the pleading for and on behalf of the Plaintiff Company to institute the suit in the court and to do all act's in general for due prosecution of the suit; that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for the purpose of availing the loan facility under Emergency Credit Line Guaranteed Scheme (Herein after referred as "ECLGS") for the expansion of his business and in pursuance of the same submitted the Loan Application Form in the Plaintiff's Office. The Defendant also assured the plaintiff qua regular payments of the loan amount in installments as per the repayment schedule; that the Plaintiff sanctioned the Loan to the Defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 25/06/2021. That the Sanction Letter specifically mentioned the details of the Loan Amount and rate of interest on which the EMI of the defendant will be calculated and the same was to paid by the Defendant within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the plaintiff sanctioned the loan amounting of Rs. 23683/- to the defendant. That after receiving the Sanction Letter, the Defendant and Plaintiff entered into the Loan Agreement bearing No. 1070005633 of which the ECLGS Account No. is CGTMSE- 000005072-LOS vide agreement dated 02/07/2021. That the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the loan either towards principal or interest or charges thereon; that the Defendant stopped paying EMI's; that the Plaintiff ANSHUL Digitally signed by ANSHUL MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2025.11.13 16:47:29 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1191/2023 Aye Finance Vs. Sunil Jangid Page No. 2 of 6 tried to contact the Defendant on several occasions and demanded the payment of EMI's but of no avail. That accordingly, the Plaintiff through its counsel issued Loan Recall Notice vide dated 08/06/2023 and recalled the loan facility; that the Plaintiff also demanded the total outstanding amount with up to date. That despite the receipt of the notice, the Defendant did not repay the outstanding amount. That as per the guidelines issued by the RBI if there are more than 3 defaults the Loan Account will be classified as Non- Performing Asset and accordingly, the Debtor will be bound to initiate legal actions against the Defaulter. Accordingly, abiding by the RBI guidelines, the loan account of the Defendant has now slipped into NA due to regular non-payments; that as per the statement accounts, maintained by the Plaintiff the Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 11841.5/- to the Plaintiff towards foreclosure amount till date.
In the light of aforesaid facts, Plaintiff Company has sought recovery of the sum of Rs. 11841.5/- from the Defendant along with Digitally pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. ANSHUL signed by ANSHUL MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2025.11.13 16:47:36 +0530
2. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. However, despite service of summons, defendant did not appear and accordingly, he was proceeded ex-party vide order dated 13.05.2024.
3. The plaintiff has examined its AR Sh. Piyush kumar as PW1, who has relied on the following documents in support of his case -
CS SCJ No. 1191/2023 Aye Finance Vs. Sunil Jangid Page No. 3 of 6
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/1 : Authority Letter of AR
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/2 : Sanction Letter
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/3 : Loan Agreement
(OSR)
Ex. PW1/4 : Statement of Accounts
(OSR)
Mark A Loan Recall Notice
The defendant, neither cross-examined the plaintiff witness nor led any evidence on his behalf.
4. Since the defendant has already been proceeded ex-
Digitally parte, it is clear that the evidence of the plaintiff has remained signed by ANSHUL ANSHUL MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2025.11.13 16:47:42 unchallenged in this case. The fact that the defendant owed the dues +0530 has been proved by the plaintiff by leading evidence such as Sanction Letter Ex. PW 1/2 (OSR), Loan Agreement Ex. PW 1/3 (OSR), Statement of accounts Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) and loan recall notice Mark A. The dues as claimed by the plaintiff are clearly reflected in statement of accounts Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
5. Now coming to the amount of dues pending. As per the loan recall Notice Mark A, the total amount due is ₹11,841.5/-. Considering that the aforesaid statement of accounts Ex.PW1/ CS SCJ No. 1191/2023 Aye Finance Vs. Sunil Jangid Page No. 4 of 6 (OSR) and Loan recall notice Mark A has remained unopposed and unrebutted, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully proved the amount due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff is Rs.11,841.5/-.
With regard to the prayer for pendente lite and future interest, Section 34 of the CPC provides that awarding of pendente lite interest is in discretion of the Court but for future interest, the provision has a limit of interest of 6% p.a. in non-commercial transactions. For commercial transactions, such as the present one, interest exceeding 6% can be awarded, provided it does not exceed the contractual rate of interest. Therefore, keeping in view Section 34 CPC and the law laid down in Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra AIR 2001 SC 3095, court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the plaintiff is granted simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum i.e. till the realization Digitally signed by of the decreetal amount. ANSHUL ANSHUL MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2025.11.13 16:47:48 +0530
6. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid discussion, an ex-
parte decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.11,841.5/- alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the 10.12.2023 (date of filing of the present suit) till realisation of the amount due. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff.
CS SCJ No. 1191/2023 Aye Finance Vs. Sunil Jangid Page No. 5 of 6
7. The Reader shall prepare the decree sheet, as per this judgment. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in Open Court. by ANSHUL
ANSHUL MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
2025.11.13
This judgment contains 5 signed pages. 16:47:55 +0530
(ANSHUL MEHTA)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI/13.11.2025
CS SCJ No. 1191/2023 Aye Finance Vs. Sunil Jangid Page No. 6 of 6