Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Ms Mansi Negi on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLSW01- 003891-2025
CS (COMM) No.:225/25
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Sector 10, Dwarka Branch,
Through RACPC Branch,
A-1/24, Near Metro Police Station,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Ms. Mansi Negi (Student)
D/o. Shri Surender Negi,
R/o. RZB-34, Matiala Extension, Behind MCD School,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
2. Shri Surender Kumar (Co-obligant)
S/o. Shri Keshar Singh Negi,
R/o. RZB-34, Matiala Extension, Behind MCD School,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
Also at:
E-18/19, Near Metro Pillar No. 707,
Om Vihar Extension, Ram Nagar Road,
New Delhi-110059
.......DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of Suit : 06.05.2025
Date of Reserving Judgment : 26.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 1 of 12 recovery of Rs.4,52,323/- along with pendente-lite and future interest, filed by plaintiff against the defendants.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Central office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. It is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It is engaged in the business of banking. It has various Local Head offices including one at New Delhi and has various branch offices throughout India and a Centralized Recovery Centre called RACPC, situated at A-1124, Janakpuri, New Delhi-l10058 which is under the administrative control of the Local Head Office at New Delhi. The present case has been filed by Sh.Deepak Sharma, Manager/Authorized Representative of plaintiff Bank.
3. It is further averred that RACPC (Retail Asset Central Processing Centre) has been established by the Plaintiff Bank to deal with the loan accounts of its linked Branches situated within Delhi/New Delhi to recover the default amounts due against the defaulter borrowers. Hence, the present suit is being filed by RACPC, Janakpuri. However, the plaintiff bank remains State Bank of India only.
4. It is further averred that defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 (father of defendant no.1) being the borrower & co- borrower, approached Janakpuri, RACPC Branch, New Delhi of plaintiff bank for availing an education loan of CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 2 of 12 Rs.3,84,500/- for pursuing B.Tech from DPGITM Engineering college (affiliated to Maharishi Dayanand University), Haryana and the said loan was applied vide Application dated 15.03.20217, detailing the relevant particulars. It was further represented by the defendants that the above mentioned course is of 4 years of duration.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants furnished and provided necessary documents towards educational qualification such as copy of Marks Sheet, Selection List, Fees Proposal of said Institute and in pursuance of which and after considering such representation and on being satisfied with prospects, the plaintiff bank accepted the proposal of said education loan and in pursuance of which the defendants executed the various loan documents such as Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 10.04.2017, Arrangement Letter for Term Loan under Education Loan Schemes dated 10.04.2017 and Sanction Letter-Education Loan Scheme dated 10.04.2017.
6. In pursuance of the above and evaluating and assessing the course prospects, the plaintiff Bank sanctioned the educational loan of Rs.3,84,500/- on 04.04.2017 and the said loan was disbursed with effect from 04.04.2017 and subsequently from time to time on the request of the borrowers by opening a loan Account bearing No.36736263537 and the sanctioned loan was disbursed at various stages to the concerned Institute as per the requirement furnished by the defendants through applications. It is pertinent to mention that said loan was CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 3 of 12 sanctioned and disbursed by RACPC, Janakpuri Branch of plaintiff Bank.
7. The said educational loan as availed by the defendants carried a rate of interest @9.50% per annum and was to be payable in accordance with the terms & conditions as stipulated in the Arrangement Letter dated 10.04.2017, according to which the loan was to be repaid in 84 Equal Monthly Installments of Rs. 9,621/- which will commence after the course period of one year or after 6 months of getting a job, whichever is earlier. It is pertinent to mention that the said EMI with interest is based on current rate of interest and repayment period is fixed accordingly, stipulated by RBI from time to time. Thus, the liability of the defendants will be extinguished only when the outstanding in the loan amount becomes NIL, on payment of residual amount, if any.
8. It is further averred that defendants availed the aforesaid educational loan but failed to maintain the financial discipline. After making some part payments till February 2024, defendants miserably defaulted in the repayment schedule. Hence, the account of defendants was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.06.2024, in accordance with RBI norms. Thereafter, plaintiff issued and served upon the defendants a legal Notice dated 05.09.2024.
9. It is further the case of the plaintiff that according to the Books of Account maintained with the plaintiff bank, a Sum of Rs.4,52,323/- which also includes Rs.29,740/- CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 4 of 12 towards Un-applied Interest accrued for the period 01.06.2024 to 21.10.2024.
10. Plaintiff initiated Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings before Delhi Legal Services Authority, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, before filing of the present suit. However, the defendants did not appear in the said proceedings and consequently, Non Starter Report dated 17.02.2025 was issued by the concerned Authority. Thereafter, the present suit came to be instituted.
11. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants but defendants could not be served by way of ordinary process. However, defendant no.1 was served electronically through email and whatsapp on 13.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 respectively whereas defendant no.2 was served by way of publication in the newspaper "Veer Arjun" on 25.12.2025. Plaintiff also furnished an affidavit certifying the correctness of whatsapp number and email address of defendant no.1. However, despite service, none appeared on behalf of defendants. Consequently, the right of the defendants to file written statement was closed and defendants were proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 10.11.2025 and 09.02.2026 respectively.
12. In support of its case, the plaintiff bank has examined Sh.Deepak Sharma, Manager/AR of plaintiff Bank as PW1, who deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint during his chief examination by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). He also relied upon/proved the following CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 5 of 12 documents:-
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Non starter report Ex.PW1/1
2. Copy of Gazette Notification Ex.PW1/2
3. Original Loan Application Forms Ex.PW1/3
4. Original Loan-cum-Hypothecation Ex.PW1/4 agreement
5. Original Agreement for terms loan Ex.PW1/5 under education loan
6. Original Arrangement letter Ex.PW1/6 7. Sanction letter Ex.PW1/7
8. Copies of KYC documents of Mark defendant A(colly.)
9. Original standing instructions Ex.PW1/8 given by defendant no.1.
10. Fee structure, receipt of deposit Mark B fee and fee demand letter (colly.)
11. Copy of Letter dated 03.06.2024 Mark C
12. Copy of Legal notice dated Mark D 05.09.2024
13. Postal receipts of legal notice Ex.PW-1/9 dated 07.09.2024
14. certificate u/s 63 BSA Ex.PW1/10
15. Statement of account Ex.PW-1/11
16. Declaration u/o XI Rule 6 (3) CPC Ex.PW-1/12
13. On statement of AR of plaintiff bank, the ex-parte plaintiff evidence has been closed on 20.02.2026.
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 6 of 12 LIMITATION:
15. Firstly, I shall deal with the issue as to whether or not the present suit is within the period of limitation? In this regard, while referring to the relevant documents, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has submitted that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 04.04.2017 and the same was to be repayable in 84 EMIs and after making some part payments till February 2024 and last payment having being made on 29.02.2024, defendants failed to make further payments as per repayment schedule and hence, the present suit was filed on 06.05.2025. Thus, the suit is well within the period of limitation.
16. This is a suit for recovery of money and limitation is 3 years from the date when the cause of action arises. In view of submissions made and the fact that defendants made payment till 29.02.2024, as is reflected in the statement of account Ex.PW1/11, the Court is in agreement with Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit filed on 06.05.2025, is well within the period of limitation.
JURISDICTION:
17. While referring to the Loan application filed by the defendants alongwith other documents, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants are residing at Janakpuri, Delhi, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
18. The defendants had approached the plaintiff bank and CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 7 of 12 submitted requisite documents including Loan application Ex.PW-1/3 for availing education loan of Rs.3,84,500/- which was disbursed vide sanction letter Ex.PW-1/7 on execution of Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement Ex.PW-1/4, Arrangement for terms loan under education loan Ex.PW-1/5, Arrangement letter Ex.PW1/6 and copies of KYC documents of defendants Mark A(colly.) with the plaintiff Bank. The loan application also mentions that the same was sent to the office of RACPC branch of plaintiff. Since the office of plaintiff Bank is situated at Janakpuri and the residence of defendants is at Matiala, which are within jurisdiction of this court, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
19. Since the suit amount is above specified value i.e. Rs.3 lacs, as prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, this Court has also pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.
ENTITLEMENT:
20. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff has argued that the entire testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and un-rebutted from the side of the defendants and therefore, it is entitled to the decree, as prayed for. He also referred to the relevant documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/12, in order to bring home its point that these documents clearly prove that suit amount was due towards the defendants at the time of filing of the suit. He, therefore, prayed that the suit may be decreed.
CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 8 of 12
21. PW1 was examined by the plaintiff bank and he is found to have deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and has proved the relevant documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/12, as already noted above. As per the statement of account Ex. PW1/11, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,52,323/-.
22. There is no challenge to the case of the plaintiff from the side of the defendants. The deposition made by PW1 on oath is duly supported by the relevant documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/12, as already referred herein above. Even otherwise, nothing contrary to the case of plaintiff has been brought on record. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve such testimony made on oath.
23. From the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of PW-1 coupled with documents proved during the course of evidence, it is duly established on record that defendants had approached the plaintiff bank and submitted requisite documents including Loan application Ex.PW-1/3 for availing education loan of Rs.3,84,500/- which was disbursed vide sanction letter Ex.PW-1/7 in loan account no. 36736263537. Pursuant to it, defendants executed and submitted various documents including Loan-cum- Hypothecation agreement Ex.PW-1/4, Arrangement for term loan under education loan Ex.PW-1/5, Arrangement letter Ex.PW1/6 and copies of KYC documents of defendants Mark A(colly.) with the plaintiff Bank. Vide Ex.PW-1/8, defendant no.1 had authorized the plaintiff bank for CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 9 of 12 deduction of loan installment of Rs.9621/- from her another savings account no.20034024081 from 10.12.2021. The said educational loan was to be repaid in accordance with the terms & conditions as stipulated in the Arrangement Letter dated 10.04.2017 Ex.PW-1/6, according to which the loan was to be repaid in 84 Equal Monthly Installments of Rs.9,621/- commencing after the course period of one year or after 6 months of getting a job, whichever is earlier.
24. It further stands proved from the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 that the defendants did not maintain the financial discipline and failed in repayment of financial facility availed by them as per the terms and condition of the Agreement. This is also evident from the Loan Account statement Ex.PW1/11 of the defendants maintained by the plaintiff in its books of account. Consequently, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 05.09.2024 Mark D to the defendants vide registered posts thereby recalling the entire loan facility sanctioned to the defendants and calling upon them to make the payment of entire outstanding amount.
25. As per the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/11, Rs.4,52,323/-
is the the total outstanding amount due against the defendant. Since there is a contractual agreement between the parties regarding rate of interest vide letter of arrangement Ex.PW1/6 and the relevant portion of the testimony of PW-1 in that regard has also remained unchallenged and controverted, the interest so claimed by the plaintiff cannot be said to be on higher side. Hence, this Court is of the view CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 10 of 12 that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.4,52,323/- including the interest from the defendant.
INTEREST:
26. As regards pendente-lite and future interest, the plaintiff bank has claimed interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum from the date of filing of the same. The interest claimed by plaintiff @ 10.50% per annum is not on the higher side. Therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to claim interest @ 10.50% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs.4,52,323/- from the filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount alongwith the cost of the suit.
RELIEF
27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and hence, the following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.4,52,323/-
(Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Three hundred Twenty Three only) from the defendants;
(ii.) Pendente-lite and future interest is awarded @ 10.50% per annum on the decreetal amount, from filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.
(iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 11 of 12
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. Announced in the open Court On 11th Day of April, 2026.
(BALWANT RAI BANSAL) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI Digitally signed BALWANT by BALWANT RAI RAI BANSAL Date: 2026.04.11 BANSAL 15:24:24 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.: 225/25 State Bank of India Vs. Mansi Negi & Anr. Page 12 of 12