Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Rajesh Kumar on 14 November, 2024
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West,
Tis Hazari Extension Building, Delhi
In re:
CS (COMM) 207//2024
CNR No. DLWT01-001744-2024
State Bank of India
Nangloi Chowk Branch,
Nangloi, Delhi - 110041. ..... Plaintiff
Vs.
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Pal
R/o H. No. 78, Gali No. 3,
Ramesh Tyagi Colony, Jharoda Mazra,
Burari, New Delhi-110084
Also at :
Employee No. 70596070 D.E.M.S (Safai Karamchari)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Ward No-20 Central Zone Zonal Building, Delhi-110018 ..... Defendant
Date of institution : 28.02.2024
Date of arguments : 14.11.2024
Date of judgment : 14.11.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a 'commercial suit' qua recovery of ₹6,82,850/- (Six Lakh Eighty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum at monthly rests.
2. The dispute between the parties is a 'commercial dispute' within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA), between a transaction relating to banker/financer. Pre-Institution Mediation & Settlement between the parties remained unsuccessful vide Judgment dated 14.11.2024; CS (COMM) 207/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-001744-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 1 of 5 2 a Non-Starter Report dated 30.05.2023 of the concerned District Legal Services Authority.
3. The sole defendant of this case remained ex-parte. The summons for settlement of issues were received back with report that the defendant has left the residential address 7-8 years ago. Summons were affixed at the said address and it was the same address which the defendant supplied to the plaintiff bank while obtaining loan. The defendant was served at his office address, through concerned clerk, but the defendant did not appear at any stage of the matter.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant obtained Personal Loan of ₹ 6,60,000/-, which was sanctioned on 22.07.2019. Account no. 38624022811 was opened in the Term Loan Ledger of the plaintiff bank in the name of defendant. The defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 EMIs of ₹ 14,682/- each. The defendant also agreed to pay the floating interest on the loan amount @ 3.5% above MCLR i.e. 8.5%, i.e. total 12% with monthly rests. Defendant executed following documents at the time of obtaining loan, viz., Loan application dated 22.07.2019 along with KYC & other relevant documents; Sanction Letter dated 22.07.2019; Letter of Arrangement dated 22.07.2019; Personal Loan Agreement (Xpress Credit); S.I. dated 22.07.2019 in favour of the plaintiff (Note regarding debit of amount from the account of defendant). The defendant failed to repay the amount timely and the above mentioned account became Non-Performing Asset on 29.10.2021. Despite issuance of legal notice dated 11.02.2023, the defendant did not pay the outstanding amount. As per the plaintiff, as on 07.09.2023 a sum Judgment dated 14.11.2024; CS (COMM) 207/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-001744-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 2 of 5 3 of ₹ 6,82,850/- is due from the defendant, which includes principal amount of ₹ 5,26,972.51/- and accrued interest of ₹ 1,55,877/-.
5. The plaintiff examined PW1, namely, Rahul Tanwar in its favour who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW1/A. The deposition of PW1 is in lines to the averments contained in the plaint. In his evidence the plaintiff witness exhibited following documents; Ext. A as Gazette Notification dated 02.05.1987 in favour of the plaintiff bank; Ext. PW1/1 is the Xpress Credit Loan Application Form; Sanction Letter is Ext. PW1/2; Arrangement Letter is Ext. PW1/3; personal loan agreement Ext. PW1/4; standing instructions as Ext. PW1/5; legal notice Ext. PW1/6; statement of account along with the necessary certificate under Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ext. PW1/7 and; Certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act Ext. PW1/8.
6. As mentioned above the defendant chose not to contest the suit and remained ex-parte. The averments of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as deposition of PW1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7. The suit of the plaintiff is within limitation. The loan was sanctioned on 22.07.2019. As per statement of account Ext. PW1/7 the defendant made payment of certain installments in 2020 and 2021. Last payment was made on 17.03.2021. The suit has been filed on 28.02.2024. The suit is therefore within limitation.
8. This Court has territorial jurisdiction as the loan was extended from Nangloi branch of the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has pecuniary jurisdiction also to try the matter.
Judgment dated 14.11.2024; CS (COMM) 207/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-001744-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 3 of 5 4
9. There is no legal impediment against decreeing the suit. Accordingly, the suit is entitled to be decreed for a sum of ₹ 6,82,850/-.
10. Under section 34 of CPC, in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, and with further interest as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. Where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.
11. In this regard, one may place reliance upon the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, wherein it is held in para 3 that Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by the Court.
12. Latest Reserve Bank of India Lending and Deposit Rates of Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs) qua weighted average lending rate (WALR) on outstanding Rupee loans of SCBs, is 9.91 per cent.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court in the given facts & circumstances, interest @ 9% per annum from 08.09.2023 till realization shall meet the ends of justice.
Judgment dated 14.11.2024; CS (COMM) 207/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-001744-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 4 of 5 5
14. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of ₹ 6,82,850/-
(Six Lakh Eighty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty) with Simple interest @ 9% per annum from 08.09.2023 till realization. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. A copy of the judgment be supplied to the plaintiff as well as the defendant through electronic modes in compliance of Order 20 Rule 1(1) of CPC.
17. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on 14th day of November, 2024. Digitally DIG signed by DIG VINAY SINGH VINAY Date:
2024.11.14 SINGH 14:40:46 +1200 Dig Vinay Singh District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi (r) Judgment dated 14.11.2024; CS (COMM) 207/2024; CNR No. DLWT01-001744-2024; State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page 5 of 5