Delhi District Court
Inter Alia Having Its Branch Office At vs Shri Ajay Kumar on 3 January, 2023
DLCT010011432022
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT :
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT- 03:
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI : DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. 231/2022
CNR NO. : DLCT010011432022
In the matter of :-
M/S. ICICI Bank Limited
Through its Authorized Representative
Shri Pankaj Jain
Having its registered office at :
Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Alkapuri, Vadodara - 390007,
Corporate Office at :
ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai 400 051.
Inter alia having its Branch Office At :-
2nd Floor, Videocon Towers,
Block E-1, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Ajay Kumar
S/o Shri Jaibhagawan Singh,
r/o H.No.2, Gali No.-05,
E-Block, Rayan Enclave,
Bhaondsi Rayan,
International School Bhonsdi,
168, Gurgaon-122102.
CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 1 / 7
Also at :
Plot NO.2, Opposite KIIT ENG Collage,
Maruti Kunj Bhondshi, Sona Road,
Gurgaon-122102.
Also At :-
Premier Plasmotec Private Limited,
Plot No.1100, Sector-58,
Faridabad-121004. ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.01.2022
Order reserved on : 03.01.2023
Order passed on : 03.01.2023
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.16,07,907/-
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit for
recovery of Rs.16,07,907/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum
filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2 Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a body
incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and is having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course
Circle, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, corporate office at ICICI
Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051, and its
Branch Office at 2nd Floor, Videocon Tower, Block E-1,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055.
3 The present suit has been instituted through Shri
CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 2 / 7
Pankaj Jain, who has been duly authorized by way of power of
attorney and is competent to file, sign, verify, institute the present
suit. It is further averred that defendant had approached the
plaintiff bank for grant of personal loan for the sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- under Personal Loan Scheme. His request was
accepted by the plaintiff bank and he was sanctioned loan amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- and the said loan amount was disbursed to him
on 26.04.2019 vide loan account bearing No.
LPFDB00038951785. As per the requirement defendant had
executed Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form and
Credit Facility Application Form in favour of the plaintiff bank.
4 It is further averred that the defendant undertook to
repay the loan amount in 56 EMIs of Rs.39,195/-. After availing
the loan facility, the defendant paid only 10 EMIs. He defaulted
in repayment of 14 EMIs. Since defendant failed to update his
loan account, the plaintiff bank issued a loan recall notice dated
24.05.2021 for repayment of dues but with no avail. Hence,
plaintiff bank has instituted the instant suit for recovery of
Rs.16,07,907/- with interest @ 24% p.a.
5 The summons were issued to defendant. As per
report, defendant refused to accept the summons sent to him
through RC and speed post and hence he is deemed to be served
in accordance with law. Despite service defendant neither
appeared nor filed any written statement and was accordingly
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.07.2022. Thereafter
matter was fixed for ex-parte evidence of plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 3 / 7
6 On 03.01.2023 plaintiff filed an application for
substitution of AR which was allowed on the ground that the
previous AR Shri Pankaj Jain has been transferred to other
department and the present case has been assigned to Shri
Jitender Mehndiratta. The previous AR Shri Pankaj Jain was
permitted to be substituted by Shri Jitender Mehndiratta.
7 In order to prove its case, plaintiff bank has
examined Shri Jitender Mehndiratta, AR of plaintiff bank, as PW-
1.He has reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has relied upon documents Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/7 i.e. copy of power of attorney - Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR) ; Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form - Ex.PW-1/2 ; Credit Facility Application Form - Ex.PW-1/3 ; Loan Recall Notice dated 24.05.2021 - Ex.PW-1/4 ; copy of postal receipt - Mark "X" ; statement of account dated 12.10.2021 of loan account - Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) ; Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1860 - Ex.PW-1/6 ; Certificate under Section 2A of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 - Ex.PW- 1/7 and copy of Power of Attorney in favour of previous AR Shri Pankaj Jain - Mark "Y".
8 The PW-1 further deposed that after filing of the present suit, the defendant has not made any payment towards loan amount (personal loan) to the plaintiff bank. He was not cross-examined by the defendant.
9 I have heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 4 / 7 also perused the record carefully.
10 The instant case has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.16,07,907/- with interest @ 24% per annum. The PW-1 has proved his authority to depose on behalf of bank, vide Power of Attorney Ex.PW-1/1. He has deposed that he is fully conversant with the facts of the case on the basis of record maintained by the bank. The plaintiff has placed on record document executed by defendant at the time of grant of loan i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 is Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form and Ex.PW-1/3 is Credit Facility Application Form. The said documents reflect the contract between the parties. The defendant was sanctioned loan of Rs.15,00,000/- which was to be repaid in 56 equated monthly installments of Rs.39,195/- each. The PW-1 has deposed that defendant has not made any payment to the plaintiff bank towards loan amount after filing of the present suit. His statement of account dated 12.10.2021 is Ex.PW-1/5 (colly).
11 The suit has been filed within a period of limitation as per the statement of account Ex.PW-1/5 (colly). The PW-1 has further proved that a loan recall notice dated 24.05.2021 Ex.PW-1/4 was given to the defendant for paying the outstanding dues despite which no payment was made by the defendant to plaintiff bank. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 and unrebutted and unchallenged documents of loan proved on record by him.
12 As per the foreclosure / prepayment / statement of CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 5 / 7 account Ex.PW-1/5 (colly), bank claimed the following amount:-
Principal outstanding (Rs.) 13,06,274.00 Late payment penalty (Rs.) 71,412.00 Cheque bouncing charges and other charges (Rs.) 6,608.00 Interest for the month (Rs.) 572.00 Prepayment charges @ 5.9% on outstanding 77,070.16 principal (Rs.) Interest on pending installment (Rs.) 1,45,971.00 Cashback Amount (Rs.) 0.00 Refunds (Rs.) 0.00 Total amount payable (Rs.) 16,07,907.16
13 Though the bank has charged a sum of Rs.77,070.16 p. towards the prepayment charges @ 5.9% on outstanding principal, yet since the same was not part of the agreement, plaintiff bank cannot claim the same. It is also noteworthy that in the foreclosure notice, bank also advised the borrower to make stop payment request for the next installment and in case next month's installment was debited from his account, the same was to be refunded subject to clearance. As the bank has foreclosed the account of its own, bank is even otherwise not entitled for the charges of Rs.77,070.16 p. After deducting the said amount, defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,30,837/- (16,07,907.16
- 77,070.16).
14 Though the plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 19.01.2022 till realization of the decretal amount, yet it is admitted case of the plaintiff bank that bank had foreclosed the loan account of its own and also terminated the agreement of CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 6 / 7 its own. Thus, I am of the view that bank is not entitled for pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum. Considering the fact that the rate of interest has been drastically reduced since 2018, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if the simple, pendente lite and future interest be awarded @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, order accordingly.
15 R E L I E F:-
In view of the above, I hereby pass :-
i) an ex-parte money decree in the sum of
Rs.15,30,837/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty
Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 19.01.2022 till the realization of the amount.
16 In view of the above, the suit is decreed with cost.
17 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2023.01.03
16:53:12
Announced in the open Court +0530
on 3rd January, 2023 (ILLA RAWAT)
District Judge Commercial Court-03
Central District, THC, Delhi.
CS (COMM) No.231/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Page No. 7 / 7