Delhi District Court
Uco Bank vs Satyam General Store on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH GURVINDER PAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021
UCO Bank
Head Office at 10, B.T.M Sarani, Kolkata
And Branch office at:
40, Community Centre, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I,
New Delhi-110028.
....Plaintiff
Versus
Satyam General Store
Proprietor Sh. Rakesh Kumar Thakur
s/o Sh. Jitender Kumar Thakur,
r/o Kishna Basti, Old Kasna Road,
Near Surajpur Court,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201308.
Also at:-
R/o Rajpur, Basanpatti Supaul,
Bihar-852215.
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 12.01.2021
Arguments concluded on : 07.07.2022
Decided on :30.07.2022
Appearances : Ms. Vandana Bhatia, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
EX- PARTE JUDGMENT
1.This suit was filed by plaintiff UCO Bank for recovery of Rs. 7,00,283.45p (Rupees seven lakhs, two hundred, eighty three and forty five paisa) with interest and cost against the defendant. In terms of plaint Mr. Kewal Kumar, Principal Officer/Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank is well conversant with the facts of the case and has been duly authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021 UCO Bank vs. Satyam General Store Page 1 of 6However, an application for substitution of AR of Plaintiff was filed and Sh. Devender Singh Rawat was substituted as AR of the Plaintiff Company on 23.09.2021. Plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Plaintiff sanctioned a 'Term Loan' to the defendant, a proprietorship firm, for Rs. 1,50,000/- and 'Cash Credit Limit' of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 26.02.2018. The defendant executed the loan documents i.e., Undertaking dated 26.02.2018, Composite deed of hypothecation dated 26.02.2018 for 'Term Loan' for the sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs and fifty thousand only), Demand Promissory Note dated 26.02.2018, A-47 dated 26.02.2018 and A-3-UTI dated 26.02.2018. Vide loan account no. 10270610008188, plaintiff bank disbursed the loan to the defendant on 26.02.2018. 'Cash Credit Limit' for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) vide account no. 10270510001028 on 26.02.2018 was disbursed to defendant by plaintiff bank. As per case of the plaintiff, the defendant was required to repay the loan through 60 equated monthly Installments of Rs. 3,158/- each commencing from 31.03.2018. Interest @ MCLR + 0.15% i.e. 8.60% per annum subject to change in MCLR from time to time as per RBI guidelines and penal interest @ 2% per annum has been claimed. Defendant failed to abide by the repayment schedule and had defaulted in payment of installments despite repeated requests. The account of defendant was classified as NPA on 31.05.2019. Thereafter plaintiff issued and served upon the defendant a Legal Demand Notice dated 20.06.2019.
2. Summons were issued to the defendant vide orders CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021 UCO Bank vs. Satyam General Store Page 2 of 6 dated 13.01.2021, 24.02.2021, 23.09.2021, 28.10.2021 and 29.11.2021. Defendant was served through publication in newspapers i.e., Jansatta (Hindi edition) dated 27.02.2022 and Financial Express (English Edition) dated 27.02.2022 in terms of order dated 01.02.2022. Defendant did not appear in Court. No written statement was filed by defendant. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 28.04.2022 for non appearance.
3. In the ex-parte plaintiff's evidence, Sh. Devender Singh Rawat, Senior Manager of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 who filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. His evidence by way of affidavit was tendered before the Court and he proved the following documents :-
S.No Documents Exhibit
1. Loan application dated Ex.
28.12.2017. PW1/1
2. Sanction letter dated Ex.
26.02.2018. PW1/2
3. Under taking dated Ex.
26.02.2018. PW1/3
4. Composite Deed of Ex.
Hypothecation dated PW1/4
26.02.2018.
5. Demand Promissory Note Ex.
dated 26.02.2018. PW1/5
6. A-47 dated 26.02.2018. Ex.
PW1/6
7. A-3-UTI dated 26.02.2018. Ex.
PW1/7
8. Recall letter dated Ex.
07.05.2019 and 01.06.2019 PW1/8
and Legal Demand Notice (Colly)
CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021 UCO Bank vs. Satyam General Store Page 3 of 6
dated 20.06.2019.
9. Statement of account Ex.
alongwith Certificate under PW1/9
Section 2A (a&b) of Bankers (Colly)
book of evidence.
10. Pre-Litigation Non-Starter Ex.
Mediation report dated PW1/10
23.12.2019.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and carefully gone through the record.
5. In his unrebutted testimony from the documents PW-1 has clearly proved the Loan application dated 28.12.2017 as Ex. PW1/1; Sanction letter dated 26.02.2018 as Ex. PW1/2; Under taking dated 26.02.2018 as Ex. PW1/3; Composite Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.02.2018 as Ex. PW1/4; Demand Promissory Note dated 26.02.2018 as Ex. PW1/5; A-47 dated 26.02.2018 as Ex. PW1/6, A-3-UTI dated 26.02.2018 as Ex. PW1/7; Recall letter dated 07.05.2019 and 01.06.2019 and Legal Demand Notice dated 20.06.2019 as Ex. PW1/8 (Colly); Statement of account alongwith Certificate under Section 2A (a&b) of Bankers book of evidence as Ex. PW1/9 (Colly) and Pre-Litigation Non-Starter Mediation report dated 23.12.2019 as Ex. PW/10.
6. Plaintiff through Manager had also placed on record copy of the statements of accounts dated 31.10.2020 of defendant of (1) loan account no. 10270510001028 with the mention of interest @ 8.45 % per annum (01.10.2019 to 31.10.2020) Rs. 47,601/- on the NPA account making notional balance payable as CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021 UCO Bank vs. Satyam General Store Page 4 of 6 Rs. 5,59,766.92p; (2) loan account no. 10270610008188 with the mention of interest @ 8.45 % per annum (01.02.2019 to 31.10.2020) Rs. 15,647/- on the NPA account making notional balance payable as Rs. 1,40,516.53p.
7. Keeping in view the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 and the documents proved on record, in my opinion plaintiff has successfully established that defendant had failed to pay dues despite opportunities. In my opinion, plaintiff has proved its case in respect of the due amount i.e. Rs. 7,00,283.45p.
8. Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 8.45% per annum alongwith penal interest @ 2% per annum from 01.11.2020 till the realization of the loan.
9. Order VII Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as CPC) in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value was brought in by way of amendment in respect of the requirements of pleadings where interest has been claimed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest on the basis of agreement between the parties.
10. Under Section 34 of CPC it is provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there in no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to the commercial transactions.
CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021 UCO Bank vs. Satyam General Store Page 5 of 611. Keeping in view the above discussion, in my opinion it has been established that it has been commercial transaction and claimed interest is neither excessive nor exhorbitant.
12. Plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit. Keeping in view Sections 35 and 35A of CPC, it has been established that defendant failed to pay the amount despite service of summons and even failed to file written statement. Therefore, defendant himself is responsible for the cost of the litigation to the extent of court fee and lawyers fee etc. as per rules. In my view plaintiff is accordingly entitled for the cost of litigation against the defendant.
Relief.
13. In view of the above discussions, suit for recovery is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for an amount of Rs. 7,00,283.45p (Rupees seven lakhs, two hundred eighty three and forty five paisa) along with interest @ 8.45% per annum alongwith penal interest @ 2% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and from the date of decree till the realization of the decreetal amount. Cost is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the extent of court fee and advocate's fee as per rules.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room. Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: +0530 2022.07.30 13:14:59 ANNOUNCED IN (Gurvinder Pal Singh) OPEN COURT District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 th On 30 July, 2022. Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (vkp) CS (Comm.) No. 22/2021 UCO Bank vs. Satyam General Store Page 6 of 6