Delhi District Court
State Bank Of Hyderabad vs Sh. Deepak Kumar Dixit on 7 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit no. 98/2011
Unique Identification No. 02402C0138462011
State Bank of Hyderabad
Head Office: Gunfoundry, Hyderabad
Branch office:
Krishna Nagar Branch,
At 233A, Satnam Road,
Chhachhi building, Lal Quarter,
Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051 ...........Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Deepak Kumar Dixit
Proprietor: M/s. Subham Sanskriti Export India
At 28/1/3/B-1, Radhey Shyam Gali,
East Azad Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
Also At:
Sh. Deepak Kumar Dixit
S/o Shiv Kant Dixit
R/o B-51, Gali no.10,
East Azad Nagar,
Delhi-110051
Also At:
Sh. Deepak Kumar Dixit
S/o Shiv Kant Dixit
R/o H.No.11, Gali no.03,
Block-5, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110051
Also At:
Sh. Deepak Kumar Dixit
S/o Shiv Kant Dixit
At, H.No. 5363, Gali no.3,
Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110051 .......... Defendant
Suit no.98/11 Page no. 1 of 8
Suit for Recovery of Rs.1,76,300/- (Rs. One lac seventy six thousand
three hundred only) plus pendente-lite and future interest at the rate
of 13.75% per annum with monthly rests and cost of the suit.
1. Date of institution of Suit : 06.05.2011
2. Judgment reserved on : 07.05.2015
3. Date of Judgment : 07.05.2015
4. Decision : Suit Decreed
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,76,300/- filed by the plaintiff bank. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant which were received back unserved and thereafter an application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC was moved by the plaintiff and defendant was served by way of publication in newspaper Statesman on 30.01.2012 but he did not appear. Therefore defendant Sh. Deepak Kumar was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.04.2012. Thereafter, evidence was led by the plaintiff and final arguments have been heard.
2. I shall straight away discuss the plaintiff's case through its evidence.
3. a) PW-1, Sh. Kamal Lochan Naik, Manager and In-charge of Stress Assets Resolution Centre, State Bank of India has deposed that he is employed with the plaintiff bank and In-charge of Stress Assets Resolution Centre (SARC) wing of Retail Assets Small and Medium Enterprise City Credit Centre and is duly authorized, empowered and comptent to sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the plaintiff bank and to depose and to do all other works necessary for prosecuting the present case by virtue of State Bank of Hyderabad Suit no.98/11 Page no. 2 of 8 Notification dated 13.04.1993 in pursuance of Regulation 55 (1) of Subsidiary Bank's General Regulations 1959.
b) He further deposed that the defendant is doing the business of garment manufacturing and export, in the name and style of his proprietorship concern, namely M/s. Subham Sanskriti Export India. The defendant approached the plaintiff for granting of credit facility for smooth running of his business in the name of his proprietorship concern, namely M/s. Subham Sanskriti Export India through application dated 27.12.2008 along with his bio-data. He further deposed that the said request was accepted by the plaintiff and a cash credit limit of Rs.7 lacs was sanctioned, lent and released by the plaintiff on 22.01.2009 in the name of Proprietorship concern of the defendant, namely M/s. Subham Sanskriti Export India vide Account No.62087029187 and the defendant availed the above said limit under the terms and conditions contained in the documents executed by him, voluntary and consciously.
c) He further states that the defendant agreed to repay the amounts availed in the said cash credit limit 'on demand' with interest @ 0.25% above the State Bank of Hyderabad Prime Lending Rate per annum with monthly rests. At present the effective rate of interest is at the rate of 13.75% per annum, which is being charged by the plaintiff with monthly rests.
d) The defendant agreed to submit stock statement of his Proprietorship concern to the plaintiff so as to enable the plaintiff to allocate drawing powers within the sanctioned limit and the defendant further agreed to route all the transactions of sale and purchase through Suit no.98/11 Page no. 3 of 8 the account maintained with the plaintiff, which conditions were the basic of sanction/availing of the said limit.
e) He further states that as security for the proper payment and adherence to the financial discipline, various security documents have been executed and the entire stocks and goods to the Proprietorship concern of the defendant have been hypothecated with the plaintiff as security.
f) It was further agreed by the defendant that the moneys due shall, notwithstanding that the date of payment thereof shall not have arrived at and notwithstanding anything contained in the said agreements, become payable in lump sum at any other time at the option of the plaintiff.
g) He further deposed that in consideration of the plaintiff bank granted the said cash credit limit of Rs.7 lacs on 22.01.09 to the defendant and to secure the due repayment of the plaintiff banks' dues there under, the defendant executed in favour of and delivered to the plaintiff bank at Krishna Nagar, Delhi branch the following loan and security documents:-
Agreement of Hypothecation; Demand Promissory Note Rs.7 lacs; D.P. Note Delivery Letter for Rs.7 lacs; Letter of Waiver for Rs.7 Lacs and certification of executions all dated 22.01.2009.
h) He further states that defendant failed to maintain the financial discipline as the defendant failed to pay the amounts outstanding in the said cash credit limit inspite of demands by plaintiff whereby the account of the defendant with the plaintiff became irregular and sticky and was classified as NPA on June 2010.
i) On defaults being committed by the defendant, the plaintiff bank Suit no.98/11 Page no. 4 of 8 was constrained to adjust a sum of Rs.5,66,622/- out of total outstanding of Rs.7,14,102/- by liquidating the term deposit of the defendant pledged with the plaintiff; thus remaining outstanding being Rs.1,47,480/- as on 28.06.2010. As such there was a total outstanding of Rs.1,47,480/- as on 28.06.2010 which the defendant has failed to pay despite number of promise made on different dates and lastly on 06.09.2010, hence the present suit.
j) As per agreement it was agreed by the defendant, that the interest on the loan will be charged @ 0.25% above the State Bank of Hyderabad prime lending rate per annum with monthly rests. Hence, at present the effective rate of interest is @ 13.75% per annum.
h) He further deposed that as per RBI guide-lines vide circular No. DBOD No. BP.BC.46/21.04.048/2009-2010 dated 24.09.2009 and banking norms & accounting practice, the interest accrued on the outstanding amount against the defendant has not been debited in his account since 01.06.2010 as his account has been declared as a NPA in June 2010 but as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement and security documents the plaintiff is entitled to claim and realize the unrealized interest accrued from 01.06.2010. Thus the total outstanding against the defendant as on 04.05.2011 is of Rs.1,76,300/- at the agreed rate of 13.75% per annum. The plaintiff is also entitled to penal interest at the rate of 2% above the rate applicable on the entire outstanding in case of default. The plaintiff is also entitled to further interest thereon @ 13.75% p.a. with monthly rests till full payment which the defendant have failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiff bank without any reason Suit no.98/11 Page no. 5 of 8 whatsoever.
i) He further states now as on 04.05.2011 the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,76,300/- along with interest @ 13.75% p.a. with monthly rests till full payment from the defendant. He has relied upon photocopy of notification as Ex. PW-1/1, plaint Ex. PW-1/2, statement of account Ex. PW-1/3, the application dated 27.12.2008 as Ex. PW-1/4, bio-data of the defendant Ex. PW-1/5.
4. a) PW-2 Sh. Rama Nand deposed that he is posted as Deputy Manager with the plaintiff bank and deposed in respect of the said cash credit limits facility the following amount is due and payable as on 04.05.2011 to the plaintiff bank by the defendant:
Cash credit limits facility outstanding amount as on 03.05.2011 (inclusive of interest upto 31.05.2010) Rs.1,47,480.00 Add accrued interest from 01.06.10 to 03.05.11 at the rate of 13.75% p.a. Rs. 28,820.00 Total Rs.1,76,300.00
b) During the preparation for the argument it transpired that the plaintiff bank has stated in the plaint and deposed in its evidence that as on 04.05.2011 the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
1,76,300/- (Rs. One lac seventy six thousand three hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 13.75% with monthly rests till full payment from the defendant. The said sum of total outstanding amount is the correct amount.
c) It transpired that due to inadvertent typing mistake, the Suit no.98/11 Page no. 6 of 8 outstanding amount as on 04.05.2010 is wrongly typed as 1,47,480/- in place of correct figure of Rs.1,47,680/- as mentioned in the statement of account. Similarly, it transpired that due to inadvertent typing mistake, the amount of accrued interest from 01.06.2010 to 03.05.2011 at the rate of 13.75 p.a. is wrongly typed as Rs.28820/- in place of correct figure of Rs.28620/- as mentioned in the statement of account.
d) Due to inadvertent typing mistake, there is difference of Rs.200/- in both the break-up figures; in the former figure it is Rs.200/- more and in the later figure it is Rs.200/- less; thus difference in both the figures even out and the total of both the figures comes out to be the same correct figure of Rs.1,76,300/- as correctly mentioned in the statement of account.
e) PW-2 states that outstanding amount as on 04.05.2010 is Rs. 1,47,480/- in statement of account. Similarly, the amount of accrued interest from 01.06.2010 to 03.05.2011 at the rate of 13.75% p.a. is Rs. 2,82,620/-.
f) PW-2 further states that as on 04.05.2011, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,76,300/- along with interest at the rate of 13.75% with monthly rests till full payment from the defendant as mentioned in the statement of account.
5. PW-3 Sh. Mahipal Singh deposed that no interest has been charged on entries relating incidental charges by the bank. He further deposed that there being no capitalization effect, the amount claimed in the O.A. is the correct amount. He further deposed that the present affidavit has been filed in support of the revised statement of accounts in accordance with Suit no.98/11 Page no. 7 of 8 the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Ors. He further deposed that besides the address of defendants shown in the cause title there is no other address (old or new) of the defendants available in the bank record. He also deposed that till filing of the suit the defendant at any point of time did not inform the bank about change of his address. Plaintiff has relied upon statement of account Ex. PW-1/3.
Relief: -
6. In view of unrebutted testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and documents proved on record, I hereby decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,76,300/- (Rs. One lac seventy six thousand three hundred only)/- alongwith cost of the suit. A pendentelite and future interest @ 9% p.a. is also awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of filing of suit till realization.
7. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the (Amitabh Rawat) Open Court on JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, Shahdara, 07.05.2015) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (This judgment contains 8 pages) Suit no.98/11 Page no. 8 of 8