Delhi District Court
Bank Of India vs Mr.Ravi Prakash Ojha on 3 August, 2024
In The Court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad,
District Judge-02, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Civil Suit No.480/2020
CNR No.DLET01-008371-2014
In the matter of :-
Bank of India,
a body corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office,
at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051
and a branch office amongst other places
at 13-14, Shree Balaji Shopping Centre,
Pocket-II, Mayur Vihar Phase-I,
Delhi-110091 through its duly constituted
attorney, Principal Officer and Senior
Manager, Mrs. Bela Dewan.
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Mr. Ravi Prakash Ojha,
S/o Mr. Avdhesh Ojha,
1-P, Pocket-2 (EHS),
Mix Housing, MIG Flats,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi-110 091.
2. Mr. Avdhesh Ojha, Digitally
S/o Mr. Suraj Ojha, signed by
SANATAN
1-P, Pocket-2 (EHS), SANATAN PRASAD
PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03
14:07:25
+0530
CS No.480/2020
Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.1 of 6
Mix Housing, MIG Flats,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi-110 091.
.......Defendants.
Date of Institution : 20.02.2014
Date of Reserving Order : 03.08.2024
Date of Decision : 03.08.2024
Suit For Recovery of Rs. 4,66,023.37 (Rupees Four Lakh
Sixty Six Thousand Twenty Three & Paise Thirty Seven
only).
Present : Sh. Deepak Gupta, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendants are ex-parte.
JUDGMENT
1. Initially, the instant suit was filed under Order XXXVII, CPC. However, the same was treated as an ordinary suit, vide order, dated 26.07.2019. The case of the plaintiff, in the present suit, is that the plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies, (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head office at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 and a branch office amongst other places at 13-14, Shree Balaji Shopping Centre, Pocket-II, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110 091. Ms. Bela Dewan has Digitally signed by been authorized and competent to act, appear, sign and verify SANATAN SANATAN PRASAD PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03 14:07:51 +0530 CS No.480/2020 Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.2 of 6 pleadings, institute suits, swear affidavits and do all needful for due prosecution of the suits on behalf of the plaintiff bank, as Attorney of the plaintiff Bank, vide power of attorney executed in her favour.
2. It is averred that the the defendants, in the month of February, 2011, approached the plaintiff with request to grant them vehicle loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for purchase of vehicle, i.e., 'Maruti Swift VD-I' car. The plaintiff considered the request of defendants, and sanctioned and disbursed the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to them on 22.02.2011, whereby the defendants had agreed to repay the loan along with interest thereon in 72 equated monthly installments of Rs.9,034/- each commencing from March, 2011. The defendants, in consideration of plaintiff having sanctioned the loan sought by them and as security for the repayment and due discharge of all the liabilities arising out of the loan sanctioned, jointly and severally executed the following documents in favour of the plaintiff bank:-
a) Demand Promissory Note, dated 22.02.2011, for Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest thereon from 22.02.2011 Digitally @ 3.50% over bank rate and minimum 13% p.a. with signed by SANATAN SANATAN PRASAD monthly rests for value received; PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03 14:08:01 +0530 CS No.480/2020 Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.3 of 6
b) Bearer Letter, dated 22.02.2011;
c) Letter of Instalment, dated 22.02.2011 for repayment of the loan in monthly instalments of Rs.9,034/- each commencing from March, 2011;
d) Agreement of Hypothecation for Consumer Loan in respect of vehicles, dated 22.02.2011; and
e) Letter of Declaration, Undertaking, Authority and Continuing Security, dated 22.02.2011.
3. It is, also, averred that the plaintiff got served defendants with legal notice of demand, dated 23.01.2014 when defendants did not regularize repayment of the loan amount. It is, further, averred that the loan account No. 604360510000119 in the name of the defendants, maintained by the plaintiff Bank, did not depict any credit entry after the last credit entry, dated 10.09.2012, and thus, a sum of Rs.3,96,607.37, inclusive of interest upto 31.12.2012 is the outstanding amount due to plaintiff from the defendants, besides, the sum of Rs.69,416/- being the amount of interest for the period from 01.01.2013 till 18.02.2014, which amount of interest has, though, accrued but not debited to the account of defendants, and as such, a total sum of Rs.4,66,023.37 Digitally signed by with interest @ 13.70% p.a., with monthly rests from SANATAN SANATAN PRASAD PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03 14:08:11 CS No.480/2020 +0530 Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.4 of 6 19.02.2014 is claimed from the defendants. Hence, the present suit.
4. The summons of the suit were issued to the defendants through ordinary process, however, the same could not served upon them. Thus, they were served with summons by way of publication in newspaper "Veer Arjun", dated 16.12.2021, and when none had appeared on behalf of the defendants despite due service, they were were proceeded with exparte, vide order, dated 14.03.2022.
5. The plaintiff bank led its ex-parte evidence. To prove its case, the plaintiff bank has examined its witness Sh. Rahul Dabra, Chief Manager, Bank of India, Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi, who had tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at points 'A' and 'B', also relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11, which are mentioned as under:-
1) The copy of authorization letter as Ex.PW1/1, though, not so numbered thereupon;
2) The Original Loan Application as Ex.PW1/2;
3) The original of Demand Promissory Note, dated Digitally signed by SANATAN 22.02.2011 as Ex.PW1/3; SANATAN PRASAD PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03 14:08:22 +0530 CS No.480/2020 Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.5 of 6
4) The Bearer letter, dated 22.02.2011 as Ex.PW1/4;
5) Letter of instalment, dated 22.02.2011 as Ex.PW1/5;
6) Agreement of hypothecation as Ex.PW1/6;
7) Letter of declaration, undertaking, authority and continuity security, dated 22.02.2011 as Ex.PW1/7;
8) Copy of legal notice of demand, dated 23.01.2014 as Ex.PW1/8;
9) The copy of statement of account as Ex.PW1/9;
10) The copy of certificate of interest as Ex.PW1/10;
11) The Copy of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/11, though, not so numbered thereupon.
6. I have heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record, also written arguments and after considering the undisputed, uncontroverted and unchallenged testimony of PW1, I am of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness and therefore, plaintiff has become successful in establishing its claim on record and its suit has been brought within the period of limitation, also this Court has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the subject matter of the suit, which is liable to be decreed. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff, is hereby, Digitally signed by SANATAN SANATAN PRASAD PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03 CS No.480/2020 14:08:33 +0530 Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.6 of 6 decreed, for a sum of 4,66,023.37 (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Twenty Three and paise Thirty Seven only), jointly and severally, against the defendants, along with interest @ 13.7% per annum. Costs of the suit is also awarded. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The decree shall be prepared only on the payment of the deficit court fees, if any. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by SANATAN SANATAN PRASAD PRASAD Date:
2024.08.03 14:08:41 Announced in the open +0530 Court on 03.08.2024 (Sanatan Prasad) District Judge-02, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.CS No.480/2020
Bank of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Ojha. Page No.7 of 6