Delhi District Court
Suit No.114/17 Bank Of India vs . Srg Packaging Pvt. Ltd. on 3 May, 2018
Suit no.114/17 Bank of India Vs. SRG Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNEESH GARG, CIVIL JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.:114/17
In the matter of--
Bank of India
G.T. Road, Shahadra
Delhi
Through its POA Holder,
Arvind Kumar Aggarwal
.......PLAINTIFF
versus
M/S S.R.G. Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
83, Basement Complex,
108, First Floor, Veersavarkar Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi92
ALSO AT:
a) E41, South Anarkali, Gali No. 27,
Chander Nagar, Delhi51
b) I28, SiteC, U.P.S.I.D.C.
Industrial Area, Surajpur,
Greater Noida201306.
......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of suit: 22.02.2017
Date of reservation of judgment:17.04.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment:03.05.2018
EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1.A suit for recovery of Rs. 2,19,304.22/ has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
Page 1 of 6Suit no.114/17 Bank of India Vs. SRG Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
2. In brief, the facts of the suit are that the plaintiff is a bank duly incorporated under the Banking Regulation Act and file the present suit through its duly authorized attorney Sh.Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Chief Manager, Bank of India. It is averred that defendant is having a current account no. 60152011000181 in its name since 16.07.07 in the plaintiff bank. Sh. Sunil Gandhi, one of the Director of the defendant company, applied for grant of temporary overdraft of Rs.2,00,000/ vide written application dated 08.01.16 from the plaintiff bank on behalf of defendant company. Plaintiff duly transferred Rs.1,70,169/ on 11.01.16 by way of NEFT vide cheque no. 793 and a cheque no. 790 for Rs. 30000/ was passed on 12.01.16 from the current account of the defendant for the period of one month as temporary overdraft. Defendant used the temporary overdraft amount for the period starting from 11.01.16 and when plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the said temporary over draft amount then the defendant sought some more time for the repayment. Plaintiff called and contacted the defendant and its Directors many times regarding payment of the above said loan amount with interest but the defendant and its Directors did not give any satisfactory reply and evaded the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, plaintiff got served a legal notice dated 18.09.16 to the defendant through Speed Post but the defendant neither complied with the said legal notice nor sent any reply despite receipt of the said legal notice. Left with no other alternative remedy, plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,19,304.22/.
3. Defendant has appeared after service of summons on 05.10.17. On 11.07.17, Director of the defendant company had shown his Page 2 of 6 Suit no.114/17 Bank of India Vs. SRG Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
willingness to make the payment to the plaintiff in the instant matter. However, none has appeared on behalf of the defendant on the next date of hearing i.e. 09.08.17. Accordingly, the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed and he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.08.2017.
4. Subsequently, plaintiff bank examined its AR Sh. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal in evidence as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He placed reliance upon the following documents: Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Copy of power of attorney Ex. PW1/2 Request letter dated 08.01.16 Ex. PW1/3 Demand letter Ex. PW1/4 Legal notice dated 18.09.16 Ex. PW1/5 (colly) Speed Post receipt Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) Bank statement Mark A Copy of company master dated of the defendant
5. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 06.11.17.
6. As defendant was proceeded exparte, no defence evidence was led in the matter. Ex parte final arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffbank has argued that plaintiff bank has duly proved its case by oral as well as documentary evidence on the file. Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount along with pendentlite and future interest at the agreed rate of interest. Since defendant did not context the present suit after appearance before the court, therefore, it should be presumed that it admit the claim of the plaintiff. On these grounds, he has prayed that suit should be decreed.
Page 3 of 6Suit no.114/17 Bank of India Vs. SRG Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
8. The Plaintiff bank is corporate body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. The present suit has been duly instituted by an authorized person in view of the documents placed on record.
9. As per the Plaintiff, vide letter dated 08.01.2016 Ex. PW1/2 defendant applied for grant of temporary overdraft of Rs. 2,00,000/ from the plaintiff bank. Perusal of the letter Ex. PW 1/2 shows that defendant made request for overdraft of Rs. 2,00,000/ only for the period of one month. The said facts have been stated on oath by PW1 in Ex. PW1/A. As per PW1, defendant has not repaid the said temporary overdraft amount within the stipulated period. Plaintiff bank also proved demand letter issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant Ex. PW 1/3.
10. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant in this matter is exparte and thus the statement of PW1 to the said effect has gone unrebutted. Again, the veracity of the said documents has also not been questioned. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the witness or the documents brought on record. The letter dated 08.01.16 Ex. PW1/2 has been duly proved on record as per which the Defendant made a request for overdraft of Rs. 2,00,000/ for one month.
11. The Plaintiff has further brought on record its statement of account maintained by the Plaintiff Bank in the usual course of business being Ex.PW1/6. As per the said statement, the Defendant has an outstanding of Rs. 2,19,304.22/ as on 09.02.17. The Defendant is ex parte. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said statement Page 4 of 6 Suit no.114/17 Bank of India Vs. SRG Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
of account placed on record by the Plaintiff. The present suit is filed within the period of limitation.
12. The present suit is based on the outstanding duly reflected in the statement of accounts maintained by the Plaintiff in the usual course of its business. The same reflects an outstanding of Rs. 2.19,304.22/ as due on 09.02.17. The present suit has been filed for the said amount with interest at the rate of 10.5% p.a. on the principal amount.
13. Plaintiff has also proved on record the legal notice dated 18.09.16 Ex. PW1/4 sent to the Defendant company. It has come in the evidence of the PW1 that despite service of the said legal notice, the Defendant has failed to pay the amount claimed in the present suit.
14. In view of the documents proved on record including the request letter dated 08.01.16 Ex. PW 1/2, demand letter Ex. PW1/3, legal notice dated 18.09.16 Ex. PW 1/4, Speed Post receipt Ex. PW 1/5 and bank statement Ex. PW 1/6, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,19,304.22/ from the Defendant. It is ordered accordingly.
15. On the question of interest, since the Plaintiff has been able to prove that it is entitled to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,19,304.22/, I also find that the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal amount of Rs. 2 lacs. Plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest @ of 10.5% per annum on principal amount till its realisation. In my considered view, considering the relationship between the parties, ends of justice shall be served in case simple interest @ 10.5% p.a. is awarded from the date of filing of this suit till its Page 5 of 6 Suit no.114/17 Bank of India Vs. SRG Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
realization on the principal amount of Rs. 2 lacs. Thus, the Plaintiff is awarded simple interest at the rate of 10.5% p.a. to be calculated on the sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the date of filing of this suit i.e. 22.02.2017 till realization.
16. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit. The present suit is decreed with interest in aforesaid terms. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Judgment dictated and announced in Open Court on 03.05.2018 Muneesh Garg CJ/East/03.05.2018 Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Location:
GARG Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.05.03
16:14:10 +0530
Page 6 of 6