Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Rajesh Kumar Srivastavsole Proprietor ... on 15 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022
(State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav)
CNR No. DLSE01-000045-2022
State Bank Of India
Through Manager, SBI
II Floor, Vardhman Trade Centre Building
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
..... Plaintiff
Through Sh.Varun R. Chandiok, advocate.
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav
Sole Proprietor of M/s Car Shrangar
House No.203, Street No.3, Begu Road,
Sirsa, Haryana-125 055.
Also At:
Flat No.119, Pocket-B, Sector-11,
Jasola Vihar, New Delhi-110 025.
......Defendant
Date of filing of suit: 06.01.2022
Arguments concluded on: 13.02.2024
Date of Judgment: 15.02.2024
JUDGMENT:
(1) Plaintiff filed the present suit against defendant for seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.8,85,076/- (Rupees eight lakh eighty five thousand and seventy six only) due as on 15.12.2021 along with accrued interest, in terms of the loan account till the date of filing of the suit and pendente lite and future interest @ 10.40% per annum and cost of the suit.
CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022(State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 1 of 9 BRIEF FACTS:
Case of the Plaintiff:
(2) Plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under The State Bank of India Act, 1955, (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, having one of its Local Head Office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi and a Branch Office at II Floor, Vardhman Trade Centre Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter to be referred as 'branch office'). The plaintiff is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. It is engaged in the business of banking. The present suit has been signed, verified and instituted by Sh.Swami Nath Prasad, Manager of the branch at Nehru Place, New Delhi. (3) Defendant is an individual-cum-borrower of credit facilities availed from plaintiff and thus, liable for the loan facility availed by him from the plaintiff bank.
(4) In and around July, 2018, he approached the plaintiff bank in order to secure a loan facility under the nomenclature "Cash Credit" for purpose of his business under his sole proprietorship firm titled as M/s Car Shrangar. (5) Accordingly, defendant filed an "Application for MSME Loans" with the plaintiff bank to initiate the process for grant of loan amount. Acting upon the representations and assurances made by him, plaintiff was induced to sanction a loan for a total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) vide letter of arrangement dated 19.09.2018. He was additionally sanctioned a sum of Rs.33,995/- under Additional FITL facility provided by Bank vide loan account no.39606980663 as a comp-CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022
(State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 2 of 9 off towards moratorium.
(6) In pursuance to the aforesaid sanction, various documents such as Arrangement Letter dated 19.09.2018, Loan- cum-hypothecation Agreement dated 19.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the loan agreement") were consciously entered into between the parties. Further, on request of defendant, vide Arrangement Letter dated 03.06.2020, besides cash credit limit of Rs.6,00,000/-, an additional WCTL facility was provided to defendant for an amount of Rs.1,19,100/- vide loan account no.39698844918.
(7) The loan was payable in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Arrangement Letter, under which the loan was to be repayable on demand. The schedule of repayment and interest may vary from time to time as per the change of rate of interest stipulated by the plaintiff bank. Interest was chargeable at the rate of 02.75% margin above MCLR.
(8) Vide loan agreement, plaintiff bank disbursed the entire loan amount by opening a Loan Account no. 65246416303 and 39698844918.
(9) Initially, defendant honoured the commitments of paying the EMI's but thereafter repayment became irregular. He committed breach of the terms of the Loan Agreement by repeatedly neglecting in making timely payment of loan amount. (10) Despite repeated requests, reminders and notices sent by plaintiff, requesting and advising the defendant to clear outstanding amounts due under the loan agreement/arrangement letter, he did not clear the outstanding dues. (11) As loan account having not been regularized by CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022 (State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 3 of 9 defendant, the same was categorized as an NPA w.e.f. 28.12.2020 (retrospectively) and when notwithstanding the aforesaid communications, defendant took no steps towards the regularization of the loan account, plaintiff issued instructions for issuance of legal demand notice dated 18.09.2021 thereby, calling him to pay the balance amount (then due and payable) plus accrued interest in terms of the loan agreement within two days from the date of receipt thereof, failing which it was unequivocally stipulated that plaintiff shall be constrained to initiate legal proceedings.
(12) However, in spite of the aforesaid demand notice, no steps were taken by defendant to regularize the loan account. Finding no other alternative, plaintiff recalled the entire loan amount and instituted the present suit for recovery. (13) Plaintiff has stated that since the loan was sanctioned within jurisdiction of this court at Jasola branch and further the loan account is being maintained at Nehru Place branch, therefore, this court has requisite jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.
(14) The suit has been filed within the time period prescribed for filing of suits for recovery under the law of limitation.
(15) The subject matter of the suit is a 'commercial dispute' as defined in section 2(1) (c) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
DEFENDANT IS EXPARTE:
(16) Pursuant to filing of the suit, summons were directed to be issued against defendant. Defendant could not be served by CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022 (State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 4 of 9 way of ordinary mode of service as well as by speed post.
Therefore, defendant was directed to be served by way of substituted mode of service vide order dated 11.07.2023. (17) Defendant was served by way of publication in the newspapers 'Veer Arjun' (Hindi) on 17.08.2023, 'The Times of India' (English) on 18.08.2023, 'The Tribune' on 22.08.2023 and 'Punjab Kesri' (Hindi) on 20.08.2023. However, defendant despite service did not appear to contest the suit. Since defendant did not file written statement within the statutory period of limitation, opportunity given to him for filing written statement was closed and defence of defendant was directed to struck off vide order dated 07.11.2023.
(18) Defendant was directed to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16.01.2024.
EVIDENCE & LIST OF DOCUMENTS:
(19) In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Manager/AR as PW1, who is authorized representative of the plaintiff bank. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A. (20) Before coming to the testimony of plaintiff's witness, the documents relied upon by PW1 are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
(21) List of documents: Sr. No. Details of document Exhibit No. 1. Gazette Notification dated 02.05.1987 Ex.PW1/1 2. Original application form Ex.PW1/2
3. Original Loan Agreement dated 19.09.2018 Ex.PW1/3
4. Original Supplemental Agreement dated Ex.PW1/4 03.06.2020 CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022 (State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 5 of 9
5. Letter of arrangement dated 19.09.2018 Ex.PW1/5
6. Letter of Arrangement dated 03.06.2020 Ex.PW1/6
7. Office copy of legal notice dated 18.09.2021 Ex.PW1/7 with original postal receipt.
8. Complete statement of account qua loan Ex.PW1/8 account no.65246416303
9. Complete statement of account qua loan Ex.PW1/9 account no.39606980663
10. Complete statement of account qua loan Ex.PW1/10 account no.39698844918
11. Discharge note dated 15.12.2021 qua loan Ex.PW1/11 account no.39698844918
12. Discharge note dated 15.12.2021 qua loan Ex.PW1/12 account no.39606980663
13. Discharge note dated 15.12.2021 qua loan Ex.PW1/13 account no.65246416303
14. Certificate u/s 65B of The Indian Evidence PW1/1/14 Act FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS:
(22) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record. (23) PW1 Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Manager/AR of plaintiff, in his affidavit of evidence, Ex.PW1/A has deposed and corroborated about the facts as mentioned in the plaint. He has proved the original Application Form along with Loan Agreement dated 19.09.2018, Supplemental Agreement dated 03.06.2020, and Letters of Arrangement dated 19.9.2018 and 03.06.2020 as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6 respectively.
(24) Legal Demand Notice dated 18.09.2021 along with original postal receipt is Ex.PW1/7. Statement of account qua loan account no.65246416303, 39606980663 and 39698844918 have been proved as Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10. Discharge notes CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022 (State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 6 of 9 qua said loan accounts have been proved as Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/13.
(25) Defendant availed the loan facility under the nomenclature "Cash Credit" for purpose of his business under his sole proprietorship firm titled as "M/s Car Shrangar" from plaintiff bank. He undertook to repay the outstanding liability of plaintiff bank. However, he failed to repay the loan amount as per the terms of the Loan Agreement. Due to non-payment of outstanding dues, account of defendant became NPA on 28.12.2020. Repeated requests, reminders and notices were sent to defendant from time to time, requesting and advising him to clear the outstanding amount due under the loan agreement but in vain.
(26) Defendant, despite receipt of letters and service of legal notice, Ex.PW1/7, did not liquidate the outstanding amount. As per statement of account of loan account no.65246416303, Ex.PW1/8, an amount of Rs.7,19,574/- is due and payable by him, in respect of loan account no.39606980663, Ex.PW1/9, he is liable to pay Rs.37,577/- and in respect of loan account no.39698844918, Ex.PW1/10, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,27,925/- to plaintiff bank as on 15.12.2021. (27) The deposition of plaintiff as mentioned in his affidavit of evidence, Ex.PW1/A has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as defendant did not turn up to cross-examine plaintiff's witness in respect of the deposition and averments made by him. The case of plaintiff is based on documentary evidence. The documents proved by PW1 Sh.Gurpreet Singh have not been disputed and denied by defendant and thus, they remained unchallenged.
CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022(State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 7 of 9 Disbursal of amount as per Loan Agreement, Ex.PW1/3 and Supplemental Loan Agreement dated 03.06.2020, Ex.PW1/4 are not disputed. Defendant despite service of legal notice failed to make payment of the outstanding dues of the loan accounts as mentioned in statement of account Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10 respectively. In view of uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of PW1, there is no reason to doubt his version as deposed by him in his evidence affidavit, Ex.PW1/A and the documents proved by him.
(28) Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest on the outstanding amount @ 10.40% per annum. The amount claimed by plaintiff is highly excessive. No justification and sufficient ground has been furnished for claiming the interest at such a higher side. Accordingly, I am of the view that interest of justice shall be subserved, if plaintiff bank is granted interest @ 7.5% per annum.
(29) The Legal Demand Notice dated 18.09.2021, Ex.PW1/7 was served upon defendant. The account of defendant was declared as NPA w.e.f. 28.12.2020. Plaintiff filed the present suit in the court on 06.01.2022. Thus, the suit is well within the period of limitation.
(30) This court has necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit filed by plaintiff as loan was sanctioned by plaintiff bank at Jasola branch and loan account is being maintained at Nehru Place branch.
(31) For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I am of the view that plaintiff has succeeded to prove its case. Accordingly, the suit filed by plaintiff is decreed with cost. Defendant is CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022 (State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 8 of 9 directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,85,076/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
(32) Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
(33) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
Dated: 15.02.2024 District Judge (Commercial Court)-08,
South-East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS (COMM.) No. 49/2022
(State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav) Page No. 9 of 9