Delhi District Court
Having Its Concerned Branch At vs Ravinder Singh Chauhan @ Ravinder Singh on 11 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH SACHIN JAIN,ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 325/18
CNR No. DLSW010078082018
State Bank of India
(Formerly known as
State Bank of Bikaner &Jaipur)
Constituted under
State Bank of India
Subsidiary Bank Act of 1959
and now Amalgamated with
State Bank of India vide the
Gazatte of India dated 22.02.2017
Having its concerned Branch at:
Stressed Asset Recovery Cell
RACPC Branch
A-1/24, Janakpuri,
New Delhi -110058 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ravinder Singh Chauhan @ Ravinder Singh
S/o Sh Kanshi Ram
R/o RZ-85 First Floor
Dabri Extn New Delhi - 110045
Also at:
A-20 Dashrath Puri
Palam Road, New Delhi - 110045
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 1 of 11
Also At:
S-236, Chankaya Palace
New Delhi - 110058 ... defendant
Date of institution of the plaint : 06.04.2018
Date of reserving the judgment : 11.01.2023
Date of pronouncement : 11.01.2023
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of ₹5,53,239/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs fifty three thousand and two hundred thirty nine only )
along with interest @12.30% p.a. from the date of filing of the
suit till the date of actual realization by the plaintiff.
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case at hand are that the
plaintiff is a bank namely, State Bank of India is a nationalized
bank formerly known as State Bank of Bikner & Jaipur
constituted under the State Bank of India, Act 1955 having its
head office at State Bank Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai and
its concerned Branch Office at Stressed Asset Recovery Cell,
RACPC, Branch A-1/24, Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058 which
is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court (hereinafter
referred to as "plaintiff bank").
3. The present suit is preferred through the RACPC,
Janakpuri, New Delhi, as on reorganization of the plaintiff
bank, RACPC deals exclusively with the disbursement of loan,
handling and maintaining the paperwork, documentation of the
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 2 of 11
accounts branches within Delhi and also handles the
restructuring of the loan and recovery of amounts due to the
bank.
4. The suit for recovery of money had been instituted by the
plaintiff bank through its duly authorized official in pursuance
to gazette notification dated 02.05.1987 had been placed along
with the list of documents by the plaintiff bank.
5. As per the averments in the plaint, the defendant namely,
Ravinder Singh Chauhan @ Ravinder Singh (hereinafter
"defendant") had approached the plaintiff bank for a financial
assistance for grant of car loan to the tune of ₹6,00,000/-
(Rupees Six lakhs only) on 28.11.2013 and submitted a duly
filled up loan application along with his supporting documents.
It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff bank acceded
to the request made by the defendant and sanctioned financial
assistance to the tune of ₹6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only). It
is averred in the plaint that the defendant agreed to pay the
monthly installment timely on he due date without any demand
from the plaintiff and in case of any default of payment of any
installment, the defendant shall further liable to pay additional
pennel charges on the defaulted amount to the plaintiff.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant
undertook to pay the loan amount in 84 equated monthly
installments (EMI) of ₹10,054/- (Rupees Ten thousand and fifty
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 3 of 11
four only). The plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount of
₹5,05,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs five thousand only) by opening
a loan account No.62286075105 with plaintiff bank.
7. Subsequent to the disbursement of the loan amount by the
plaintiff bank, the defendant availed and utilized the loan
amount but the defendant failed to honor his commitments and
pay EMIs and committed regular defaults. The plaintiff bank
repeatedly requested the defendant to regularize the loan
account but the defendant failed to adhere to the fiscal
discipline. Consequentially, the loan account was treated a non-
performing asset (NPA) on 28.02.2015.
8. The plaintiff bank through the legal notice dated
09.03.2018 sought payment of ₹5,53,239/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
fifty three thousand and two hundred thirty nine only ).
9. As per the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing the
present suit firstly arose on 28.11.2013 when the defendant
approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan under BR TL
Veh Car per Float for a sum of ₹6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs
only) and cause of action further arose many a times when the
defendant made intermittent payment in his loan account during
2013- 2018 but the loan account classified as NPA due to
consecutive defaults and violation in terms of agreement and
cause of action further arose on 09.03.2018 when the plaintiff
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 4 of 11
served legal notice upon the defendant. Hence, the present suit
for recovery of money by the plaintiff bank.
10. The summons for settlement of issues were issued to the
defendant by the Ld. Predecessor of the court. During the
course of the pendency of the suit the authorized representative
of the plaintiff bank was substituted from Sushil Kumar
Chadha, Chief Manager to Mr Pradeep Kahar, vide order dated
20.07.2019.
11. The summons for settlement of issues came unserved and
thereafter the defendant was served through substituted mode
through the citations published in newspaper "The Statesman"
dated 05.09.2019 and on 31.10.2019 defendant was proceeded
ex parte.
12. The plaintiff in its ex-parte evidence, tendered its
evidence by way of affidavit - Ex.PW1/A. As per the
Ex.PW1/A, the plaintiff proved the following documents:
S.No. Particulars of documents Documents marked as
1 Certified copy of the Gazette of India Ex PW1/1
dated 22.02.2017
2 Certified copy of the Gazette of India Ex PW1/2
dated 02.05.1987
3 Original loan application Ex PW1/3
4 Original of loan cum Hypothecation Ex. PW1/4
Agreement
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 5 of 11
5 Agreement Letter Ex. PW1/5
6 Receipts dated 24.11.2013 and Ex, PW1/6 (Colly)
28.11.2013
7 Insurance Policy Mark A
8 Communication dated 02.09.2014 Mark B
9 Legal notice dtd. 09.03.2018 alongwith Ex. PW1/7 (Colly)
courier receipt
10. Statement of Account of Loan Account Ex. PW1/8 (Colly)
of defendant
11. Certificate under Sectin 2A of Bankers Ex. PW1/9
Books Evidence Act r.w. Section 65B
of Indian Evidence Act 1872
13. Ld. counsel advanced arguments for the plaintiff bank
and submitted that on the basis of the unrebutted averments
made in the plaint and the oral and documentary evidence lead
before this Court, the present suit may kingly be decreed
alongwith the interest and costs as prayed for.Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in case titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs.
Anuj Kumar Tyagi RFA 56/2014 decided on 17.12.2015.
14. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and
perused the record.
15. After going through the pleadings and the documents
tendered in evidence, it is observed that as per application form
Ex PW1/3 which bears the signature of defendant and loan cum
hypothecation Ex PW1/4, it is observed that a car loan of Rs
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 6 of 11
6,00,000/-was taken by the defendant which has to be repay by
way of 84 equated monthly installments of ₹10,054/-/- each
and on perusal of account statement Ex PW 1/8 (colly) it is
observed that the defendant made the last payment of Rs
15,000/- on 12.02.2015 and as on 29.11.2018 there is an
outstanding loan amount of ₹5,53,239.64/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
fifty three thousand and two hundred thirty nine only ) against
the defendant. On perusal of the courier receipts annexed with
the legal notice Ex PW1/7 (Colly) through which the legal
notice was sent to defendant on 09.03.2018, it stands
established that the defendant never bothered to repay the loan
amount.
16. The only moot point that came to the mind of this Court
and raised to the counsel for the plaintiff was that once the loan
accounts was declared as NPA on 28.02.2015, the cause of
action arose in favour of the plaintiff bank to seek the recovery
of the loan amount whereas the present suit has been filed on
06.04.2018 which is admittedly as per the view of this Court is
time barred.
17. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment Kotak
Mahindra Bank (supra) and submitted that the cause of action
in the present case is continuing one which arose on each and
every date of default of EMI and the cause of action lastly
arose when the loan was not repaid even on the last date of
EMI. The ld. counsel further submitted that the declaration of
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 7 of 11
the account as NPA on 28.02.2015 can be considered as the
default in respect of the EMIs not paid upto that date.
18. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the
plaintiff relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein as
held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as follows:-
10. This brings me to the other aspect, as to whether the
word compensation would also include an action for
recovery i.e. a sum certain. In Jailebdeen vs
Mohammed Basheer's case, which is referred to
hereinabove, dealt with this aspect of the matter in some
detail. 10.1 In that case the defendant had availed of a
loan from the State Bank of India. On the defendant ‟s
failure to repay the amount borrowed, an action for
recovery of the amount was instituted. The suit was
decreed. Pursuant to the decree being passed, revenue
recovery proceedings were initiated against the defendant.
In those proceedings, the defendant sought and obtained a
leeway for repayment of the decretal amount in twelve
instalments at the rate of Rs. 6000/-. Since, the defendant,
failed to comply with the order passed in his favour, the
revenue proceedings were revived. At the request of the
defendant, once again, the revenue proceedings were
deferred on the condition that he would pay the money in
six instalments, with interest, on demand, at the stage of
payment of the sixth instalment. 10.2 The plaintiff agreed
to this proposal based on an obligation undertaken by the
defendant that he would repay the amount with interest,
albeit on demand, after the remittance of the sixth
instalment. Since the defendant failed to discharge his
obligation a suit for recovery was instituted, in which, the
defendant took the plea of limitation. 10.3 While
discussing the plea of limitation, the Kerala High Court
examined the scope of Article 55 in the context of
Article 19 and 21. The court concluded that Article 19
and 21 had no application to the case at hand, and that
Article 55 would operate in the facts of that case.
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan
CS No. 326/2018
Page 8 of 11
Importantly, qua the aspect as to whether the term
compensation would include a suit for debt based upon a
breach of contract, the court made the following
observations in paragraph 15. For the sake of convenience
the same are extracted hereinbelow:
15. The wording of Article 55 of the present Act and that
of Article 115 of the old Act are identical. The basis of
the above argument of the learned counsel for the
respondent is that the word 'compensation' may not
comprehend the concept of debt and as such a suit for a debt based upon a breach of contract as in this case may not come within the purview of Article 55 of the Act (Article 115 of the old Act). Dealing with the term compensation used in Article 115, Mookerjee, J. has made the following observations in the decision reported in Md. Mozaharal Ahmad v. Md. Azimaddin, AIR 1923 Cal 507 at page 511:
"......the term used in Article 115 and Article 116 is not damages but compensation, which also occurs in Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. As Lord Esher observed in Dixon v. Calcraft (1892) 1 QB 458 the expression compensation is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to damages, although as remarked by Fry, L.J. in Skinner's Co. v. Knight (1891) 2 QB 542 compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule as damages in an action for the breach. The term compensation as pointed out in the Oxford Dictionary, signifies that which is given in recompense, an equivalent rendered. Damages, on the other hand; constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained; the value estimated in money, of something lost or withheld. The term compensation etymologically suggest the image of balancing one thing against another; its primary signification is equivalence, and the secondary and more common meaning is something given or obtained as an equivalent....."
It has been held in Rameshwar Mandal v. Ram Chand Roy, ILR (1884) Cal. 1033 that a suit on a verbal State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan CS No. 326/2018 Page 9 of 11 agreement to repay on a specified date is governed by Article 115 of the old Act. It was also held in that decision that neither Article 57 nor Article 59 of the old Act (corresponding to Articles 19 and 21 of the new Act) would apply in such cases. It is interesting to note that Beverley, J. expressed in so many words his doubt as to whether the suit in that case is properly one for compensation and found himself convinced that it was so on the basis of the meaning given to the word compensation in Nobocoomar Mookhopadhaya v. Siru Mullick ILR (1881) Cal 94 which was quoted with approval in that decision. In series of decisions reported in Maneklal v. Suryapur Mills Co., AIR 1928 Bombay 252; Ram Rachhya Singh v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1930 Patna 46; Ram Raghubir v. United Refineries Ltd., AIR 1931 Rangoon 139; Fate Chand v. Nagendra, AIR 1931 Cal 790 and Ajitkumar v. Dacca Municipality, AIR 1932 Cal 85, it has been held that even suit for debts would be governed by this Article (Article 115 of the old Act) and the word compensation would comprehend a money claim made on the basis of a breach of contract. The discussion contained in the decisions dealing with Article 115 of the old Act and Article 55 of the new Act would clearly show that the word 'compensation for breach of contract' would comprehend also a claim for money due under a contract alleging breach of contract. In this view, it is clear that Article 55 may properly be considered as the Article which would apply to the suit in question as the loan in this case was made on the basis of an agreement specifying a fixed time for its repayment.
19. In light of the above judgment, this Court is in consonance with the averments/submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and in view of the documentary evidence lead by the plaintiff bank and irrefutable averments in the plaint and testimony of the plaintiff's witness, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount of ₹5,53,239/- (Rupees Five Lakhs fifty three thousand and two hundred thirty nine State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan CS No. 326/2018 Page 10 of 11 only ) along with interest @12.30% p.a. from 27.11.2018 till the recovery of the suit amount along with costs.
20. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance and necessary action as per Rules. Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.01.12
14:34:48 +0530
Pronounced in the open (Sahin Jain)
Court on 11.01.2023 Addl. District Judge-02
South West District
Dwarka Courts Complex
New Delhi
State Bank of India v.Ravinder Singh Chauhan CS No. 326/2018 Page 11 of 11