Delhi High Court
Citibank N.A. vs Mr. Dinesh Aneja on 13 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000IIAD(DELHI)242
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal
ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This is a suit under Order xxxvII CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, praying for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,75,166.66/-.
2. The plaintiff is a body corporate, constituted under the laws prevail- ing in USA and having its Registered office in New Delhi.
3. The Plaintiff has entered into a Loan Agreement dated 28.8.1996 with the defendant who is running a manufacturing unit under the name M/s. Sheel Auto Industries 73-B, Sector-31, HSIDC, Faridabad & sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the defendant. The loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- was disbursed to the defendant on 11.9.1996.
4. By virtue of the Agreement dated 28.8.96, the defendant agreed to undertake to repay the loan in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs. 12,821/- each.
5. It is averred in the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff that pursuant to receipt of the loan, the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of repayment of loan amount alongwith interest despite the plaintiff's giving several reminders and making persistent requests.
6. It is further averred in the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant was bound to repay the loan alongwith interest in terms of Clause 10 of the Loan Agreement. The relevant portion of the said Clause reads as follows :
"If one or more of the events specified in this clause (hereinaf- ter called "events of default") shall have happened. Citibank may be a written notice to the Borrower declare that the principal of and all accrued interest on the Citibank loan have become payable forthwith by the Borrower to Citibank under or in terms of this Agreement and/or any other agreement/s, document/s subsisting between the Borrower and Citibank shall become due and payable forthwith, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement or in any other agreement/s or instrument."
7. In view of the defendant's failure to perform his obligation in terms of the said Loan Agreement, the plaintiff-Bank had sent a registered legal notice dated 4.8.1998 (at page 18 of the list of the documents/part-III) through its advocates M/s. Suri & Company Law Firm asking him to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,58,166.66 within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. However, despite service of said notice, the defendant has failed to repay the due amount and the interest thereon.
8. Thereafter the plaintiff has field the present suit on 14.9.1998 under Order xxxvII CPC praying for passing a decree of Rs. 5,75,166.66/- along- with interest pendentelite & future @ 24 per cent from the date of filing of suit till realisation.
9. The defendant is duly served as per the office report dated 4.3.1999 as his wife was served and under Order V Rule 15 CPC there is sufficient service on the defendant. The defendant has not entered appearance in spite of service and accordingly under Order xxxvII Sub-rule 2, CPC the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.
10. Accordingly, the suit is decreed. The decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff & against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 5,75,166.66/- along with interest from 14th September, 1998 till the date of the decree at 23% per annum and from the date of the decree till realization at 8% per annum. There shall be no orders as to costs.
11. In view of the above, the suit is accordingly disposed of.