Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Sunita Sharma on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ KUMAR: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-004821-2024
CS (COMM) No. 417/2024
In the matter of:
Punjab National Bank,
Having its head office at:
Plot No. 4, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
Branch at:
8-A, Block-A, Kamla Nagar,
GT Karnal Road,
Delhi-110007 ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sunita Sharma
@ Sunita Kaushik,
Proprietor, M/s Cheepko
W/o Shri Vinod Kaushik,
D/o Shri Kanwar Singh,
Regd. Add.:
40, Shahzada Bagh Extension,
Daya Basti, Delhi-110035
Also at:
H. No. P-19,
Chandra Shekhar Azad Colony,
Kishan Ganj, New Delhi-110007
CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 1 of 20
2. Shri Vinod Kumar
@ Vinod Kaushik,
S/o Shri Sube Singh,
H. No. P-19,
Chandra Shekhar Azad Colony,
Kishan Ganj, New Delhi-110007 ...Defendants
Date of Institution : 02.4.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 17.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 24.12.2025
For Plaintiff : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For Defendants : Ex parte
JUDGMENT :
This is a suit for recovery of ₹5,70,091.68 paise instituted by plaintiff Punjab National Bank against defendants Smt. Sunita Sharma @ Sunita Kaushik, the proprietor of M/s Cheepko and her husband Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kaushik.
2. Facts, as per the plaintiff's version, are that the plaintiff is a Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and the successor of Oriental Bank of Commerce, vide Gazette Notification No. 133 dated 04.3.2020 of the Government of India by Scheme of Amalgamation of Oriental Bank of Commerce/United Bank of India, passed by the Central Government under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980; that in terms of the said CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 2 of 20 notification, on and from the effective date, that is, 01.4.2020, the undertaking of the Transferrer Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce/ United Bank of India) shall, without any further act, instrument, deed, stand transferred to and vest in the Transferee Bank (Punjab National Bank); that the plaintiff bank is acting through its many of branches including one Punjab National Bank situated at Ground Floor, North Tower, Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110091; that Ms. Nirmala Kumari, Senior Manager of the Punjab National Bank, presently posted at Kamla Nagar Branch, 8-A, Block-A, Kamla Nagar, GT Karnal Road, Delhi-11007, duly authorised officer of the plaintiff bank is fully conversant with the facts of the present case as per record; that Ms. Nrmala Kumari, Senior Manager, is authorised and empowered by the plaintiff bank vide Power of Attorney dated 05.11.2015 to sign, verify and institute the plaint, applications, claims, pleadings, affidavits, vakalatnama, execution and other applications etc. as may be just and necessary in the conduct of legal proceedings and to do other co-related acts on behalf of the plaintiff bank and is competent to sign and verify the present suit and other pleadings for and on behalf of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants; that the defendant No. 1, principal borrower of Cash Credit facility, is private individual and sole proprietor of "M/s Cheepko" which is engaged in making of tool bags of vehicles and running her business from the address mentioned hereinabove; that the defendant No. 2, a private individual and husband of the defendant No. 1 and stood guarantor to Cash Credit facility availed by the CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 3 of 20 defendant No. 1; that in October 2017, the defendant No. 1 approached for a Cash Credit facility having credit limit of ₹5,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna to plaintiff's bank (then United Bank of India) branch situated at Kamla Nagar with relevant documents on 30.10.2017 and after due consideration, same was sanctioned to her on 22.11.2017 and an account was opened in her firm's name, that is, M/s Cheepko vide A/c No. 0380250013509; that the defendant No. 2 stood guarantor to the CC facility availed by the defendant No. 1; that the rate of interest for CC facility was fixed at 10.60% per annum charged on monthly rest and in case of any violation of terms of the facility extended to him (sic: her), the plaintiff bank will charge a penal interest at the rate of .50% per quarter per default above normal rate of interest on the defendant's facility; that after sanction of above said facility, the defendant No. 1 executed Hypothecation Agreement (Goods, Book Debts Plant & Machinery), Agreement to Pledge of Goods to Secure a Demand Cash Credit/ Loan, Declaration of sole proprietorship, Letter of Lien, Letter of Continuity, Demand Promissory Note all dated 22.11.2017 to secure the Cash Credit facility availed by her; that the defendant No. 2 also executed Letter of Guarantee dated 22.11.2017 to CC facility availed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff bank and also submitted his identification documents & TDS Certificate; that after sanction of CC facility the defendant was maintaining his (sic: her) facility with plaintiff bank as per banking norms and it was reviewed by the plaintiff bank at regular interval; that during Covid-19 pandemic CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 4 of 20 period when the defendants were unable to repay EMI of CC facility then she approached for an Emergency Credit Overdraft facility to the plaintiff bank vide application dated 07.5.2020 sanctioned an Emergency Credit Overdraft Limit upto ₹1,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1 vide sanction letter dated 08.5.2020 and an account was opened in her firm's name, that is, M/s Cheepko vide A/c No. 0380300013554; that the rate of interest for this facility was fixed at 8.25% per annum charged on monthly rest and period of repayment was fixed for 18 months after a moratorium period of 6 months from date of disbursement; that in second half of year 2020, it was observed that the defendant is not maintaining his (sic: her) CC facility account in regular manner and no transaction is done in her CC facility account; that after noticing this irregularities, the plaintiff bank sent a reminder notice vide reference no. UBI/KGR/CASH CREDIT/2020-21/002 dated 02.7.2020 informing the defendant that her account is overdrawn and no transaction is being done as well as no stock statement is submitted every month which was a condition of CC facility availed by her; that the plaintiff bank advised her to clear the outstanding dues otherwise legal action will be initiated against her; that in September 2020, when the CC facility was due for review, plaintiff bank sent a reminder notice vide reference no. UBI/ KGR/CC/2020-21/sep/003 dated 19.9.2020 informing the defendant that her account is due for review and it is also overdrawn and stock statement is not submitted every month, hence the defendant must comply with terms of sanction; that the plaintiff bank also asked the CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 5 of 20 defendant to submit documents for review of the facilities and requested to regularise the facilities to prevent her facilities being classified as NPA and further requested to submit her reply within 7 days of receipt of Notice; that despite receipt of notice dated 19.9.2020, the defendant did not act to improve the health of facilities availed by her, then the plaintiff bank once again sent a reminder notice vide reference no. UBI/KGR/CC/2020-21/oct/003 dated 27.10.2020 reiterating the condition of facilities availed by her and again requested to submit documents for review and to regularise the facilities availed otherwise they will be classified as NPA but this time as well, the defendant ignored the request of the plaintiff bank; that when the defendant consecutively ignoring the request made through communications to her by the plaintiff bank and despite receipt of those communications, no action was taken on her part to set the facilities right, the plaintiff bank once again sent a reminder notice on 02.02.2021 and another notice on 12.02.2021 again requesting to submit documents for review and to regularise the facilities availed otherwise they will be classified as NPA; that despite, receipt of notices by the defendants and regular communication by the plaintiff bank, the defendant did not deposit overdue amounts; that the plaintiff bank, due to irregularities in her account and financial indiscipline, classified the CC account of the defendant as Non-Performing Asset on 31.3.2021 and informed her in this regards then the defendant No. 1 approached to the plaintiff bank and further assured improve the facility by paying due amount and also CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 6 of 20 executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 03.4.2021 confirming a liability of ₹5,31,659.32/- towards the plaintiff bank; that despite assurances made by the defendants, entire due amount was not paid in both accounts then upon request of the defendants, the plaintiff bank transferred the due amount of ₹25,086/- in A/c No. 0380300013554 from CC A/c No. 0380300013509 and this account was closed on 23.6.2021 and this amount was added in total due amount in CC A/c No. 0380300013509; that the plaintiff bank continuously communicating to the defendants about overdue amount in CC account but the defendants were repeatedly requesting some time to pay total due amount and those requests were always turned out to be false promises; that after several communication by the plaintiff bank about due amount, the defendant No. 1 paid an amount of ₹7,039.10/- on 24.3.2022 by way of transfer and held the remaining amount then the plaintiff bank sent a recall notice dated 24.3.2022 to the defendant No. 1 asking to deposit entire due amount and to the defendant No. 2 for Invocation of Guarantee but the defendants this time also did not act in any manner to set right the health of CC account by paying entire overdue amount; that since then, the plaintiff bank was communicating on regular basis to the defendants and pursuing them to pay due amount but inaction on their part to set right the CC account, but the defendants are not responding to the communications of the plaintiff bank; that in this way, the defendants owes a total liability of ₹5,70,091.68/- with interest calculated upto 29.02.2024 along with future and pendent lite interest towards the CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 7 of 20 plaintiff bank which is legally recoverable due on the defendants against Cash Credit Facility availed by them; that according to fact and circumstances mentioned hereinabove the defendants are liable to make payment of due amount of ₹5,70,091.68 paise with interest calculated upto 29.02.2024 along with the liquidated damages as well as pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum is due and payable by the the defendants to the plaintiff bank; that the defendant's failure to make payment of the outstanding dues itself shows that the defendant is unable and not willing to pay its debt hence the present suit; that the aforesaid amount of ₹5,70,091.68 paise has been determined by the plaintiff bank after reconciling the books of accounts maintained by it based on actual transactions between the plaintiff bank and the defendants upto 29.02.2024; that the statement of account as being placed on record has been produced from the computer and during the period when this output was produced, the computer was regularly used for the purpose of storing of this information; that the information was regularly fed in the computer and during this period the computer was operating properly; that the computer system and printer used by the plaintiff bank have been operating properly and the electronic records, that is, the statement of account and their accuracy and contents have not been altered and tempered with in any manner whatsoever; that the information contained in the computer output, that is, the statement of account is exact replica and has been produced from original record, and therefore, reproduces the information contained on electronic records CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 8 of 20 therein. It is further stated in the plaint that due to the acts of the defendants a cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff at different dates leading upto the institution of the present suit.
3. The suit is contested by the defendants by way of a written statement wherein preliminary objections are taken to the effect that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a sum of ₹5,70,091.68 paise as prayed for in the plaint from the defendants; that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit seeking the relief as prayed for against the defendants and as a consequence thereof the suit is liable to be rejected being bereft cause of action as enshrined under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure; that the plaintiff has concealed most and relevant material facts from this court; that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and the statement of accounts placed on record by the plaintiff is not correct; that the defendant No. 1 took the loan Demand Cash Credit/Loan of ₹5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.10.2017, thereafter the defendant No. 1 further took loan of ₹1,00,000/- as Emergency Credit Overdraft Facility; that the defendant No. 1 regularly paid the EMI of above said loan to the plaintiff but during pandemic Covid-19, the business of the defendant No. 1 was completely shutdown and the defendant No. 1 had suffered acute financial hardship as a result of which the defendant No. 1 could not pay some EMIs to the plaintiff; that during the Covid-19 period the defendant No. 1 apprised to the plaintiff about her poor financial CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 9 of 20 condition and requested the plaintiff to grant some time for clear some outstanding EMIs of the said loan amount but the plaintiff did not grant any time to the defendants and the plaintiff and its officials pressurized the defendant No. 1 to pay the outstanding EMIs otherwise they will declare loan account of the defendant No. 1 as NPA; that the defendant No. 1 visited to the plaintiff for renewal of the said loan amount the plaintiff did not consider the request of the defendant No. 1 and they flatly refused to renew the Cash Credit Loan Facility of the defendant No. 1; that the executives of the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant No. 1 on the various documents without allowing the defendant No. 1 to read out its contents; that the officials of the plaintiff assured the defendant No. 1 that this is formalities and do not worry about the said documents; that the plaintiff filed the false and vague documents with this present plaint; that the defendant No. 1 paid amount of ₹25,086/- to the plaintiff on 23.6.2021 and ₹7,039.10 paise to the plaintiff on 24.3.2022; that the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff levied high and exorbitant rate of interest upon the defendants which is not maintainable in the eyes of law; that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants on the exorbitant amount as the defendants are not liable to pay alleged amount to the plaintiff. In the reply on merit, the averments made by the plaintiff in support of its claim are disputed and denied and it is stated that the suit be dismissed.
CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 10 of 20
4. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement of the defendants wherein the defence taken by the defendants are traversed and the averments made in the plaint are reiterated.
5. On 03.9.2024, on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed, namely:-
1. Whether the employees of plaintiff obtains signature of defendant no.1 without explaining the contents thereof, if so its effect? OPD-1
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, for which period and at what rate? OPP
4. Relief.
6. After framing of the issues, on 08.10.2024, when the matter was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence, the parties were referred to mediation. From the Delhi Mediation Centre, although the dispute between the parties was reported as settled, but pursuant to the settlement, despite availing several opportunities, the defendants did not appear in the court to give their statements, therefore, by order dated 28.5.2025 passed by this court the defendants were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
7. In support of its claim, the plaintiff got examined PW1 Chanchal Joshi, Senior Manager and authorized representative of the plaintiff bank, who during his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A along with documents Ex.PW1/1 (copy of General Power of CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 11 of 20 Attorney dated 07.8.2020), Ex.PW1/2 (Loan Application Form dated 30.10.2017), Ex.PW1/3 (copy of PAN card of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/4 (copy of Aadhar card of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/5 (GST Registration Certificate in the name of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/6 (copy of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 along with computation of total income of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/7 (copy of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2016-17 along with computation of total income of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/8 (Specimen Sanction Letter dated 22.11.2017), Ex.PW1/9 [Hypothecation Agreement (Goods, Book Debts, Plant and Machinery) dated 22.11.2017], Ex.PW1/10 (Agreement to Pledge of Goods to secure a Demand Cash Credit/Loan dated 22.11.2017), Ex.PW1/11 (Declaration of Sole Proprietorship), Ex.PW1/12 (Letter of Lien dated 22.11.2017), Ex.PW1/13 (Letter of Continuity dated 22.11.2017), Ex.PW1/14 (Demand Promissory Note dated 22.11.2017), Ex.PW1/15 (Letter of Guarantee dated 22.11.2017), Ex.PW1/16 (copy of PAN card of the defendant No. 2), Ex.PW1/17 (copy of Aadhar card of the defendant No.
2), Ex.PW1/18 (copy of TDS Certificate/Form No. 16 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the defendant No. 2), Ex.PW1/19 (copy of reminder notice vide reference No. UBI/KGR/CASH CREDIT/2020- 21/002 dated 02.7.2020), Ex.PW1/20 (copy of reminder notice vide reference No. UBI/KGR/CC/2020-21/sep/003 dated 19.9.2020), Ex.PW1/21 (copy of reminder notice vide reference No. UBI/KGR/CC/ 2020-21/oct/003 dated 27.10.2020), Ex.PW1/22 (copy of reminder CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 12 of 20 notice dated 02.02.2021), Ex.PW1/23 (copy of reminder notice dated 12.02.2021), Ex.PW1/24 (Balance and Security Confirmation rence No. UBI/KGR/CC/ 2020-21/oct/003 dated 27.10.2020), Ex.PW1/22 (copy of reminder notice dated 02.02.2021), Ex.PW1/23 (copy of reminder Letter dated 03.4.2021), Ex.PW1/25 (Recall notice dated 24.3.2022 to the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/26 (Invocation of Guarantee notice dated 24.3.2022 to the defendant No. 2), Ex.PW1/27 (printout of statement of account of CC Facility account of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/28 (printout of memorandum of dues of CC Facility account of the defendant No. 1), Ex.PW1/29 (Non-Start Report dated 22.3.2024) and Ex.PW1/30 (affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 of CPC). After tendering of affidavit of PW1 Chanchal Joshi evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed.
8. No evidence has been led by the defendants.
9. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the material on record carefully. My issue wise findings are as follows. Re: Issue No. 1.
10. Onus of proof of this issue was on the defendant No.1. No evidence has been led by the defendant No. 1 on this issue, and there is no material before the court to suggest that the employees of the plaintiff had obtained her signature without explaining the contents of the documents which were signed by her in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 13 of 20 Re: Issue No. 2.
11. Onus of proof of this issue is on the plaintiff. In his affidavit Ex.PW1/A tendered along with documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/30 PW1 Chanchal Joshi has reiterated the averments made on behalf of the plaintiff in the plaint.
12. Having drawn the attention of the court on the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi and documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/30 it is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1, proprietor of M/s Cheepko, is engaged in the business of making of tool bags of vehicles and she had approached the plaintiff for cash credit facility of ₹5,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna on 30.10.2017. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that by sanction letter dated 22.11.2017 the plaintiff bank sanctioned the cash credit facility of ₹5,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor and executed relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 agreed to repay the cash credit facility of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10.60% per annum. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that by application dated 07.5.2020 the plaintiff bank sanctioned Emergency Credit Overdraft facility of ₹1,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1 repayable in 18 months after a moratorium period of six months from the date of disbursement along with interest at the rate of 8.25% per annum. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the cash CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 14 of 20 credit facility account was not maintained by the defendant No. 1 in second half of 2020, therefore, the plaintiff bank sent a reminder notice dated 02.7.2020 informing her that her account is overdrawn and no transaction was being done as well as no stock statement submitted every month which was a condition of cash credit facility availed by her. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that by reminder notices dated 19.9.2020, 02.02.2021 and 12.02.2021 the defendant No. 1 was requested to regularize the cash credit facility to prevent her facilities being classified as NPA within seven days. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants did not comply with the notices, thereafter, the plaintiff bank has classified their CC account as non performing asset on 31.3.2021. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 executed balance and security confirmation letter dated 03.4.2021 confirming a liability of ₹5,31,659.32 paise. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants had paid due amount of ₹ 25,086/- in account No. 0380300013554 from CC account No. 0380300013509 and the account No. 0380300013509 was closed on 23.6.2021 and amount ₹25,086/- was added in total due amount in CC account No. 0380300013509. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that after several communication by the plaintiff the defendant No. 1 had paid an amount of ₹7,039.10 paise on 24.3.2022 leaving behind the outstanding amount, thereafter, the plaintiff bank sent a recall notice dated 24.3.2022 to the defendant No. 1 asking her to deposit the entire due amount and to CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 15 of 20 defendant No. 2 for invocation of guarantee but they did not act in any manner to set right the health of the CC account by paying the entire overdue amount. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that both the defendants are liable to pay principal amount of ₹3,74,054.78 paise along with interest with effect from 31.3.2021 to 29.2.2024 which comes to ₹1,90,946.90 paise and charges of ₹5,090/-. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants are also liable to pay future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
13. From the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi and documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/30 it has been proved that the defendant No. 1 had applied for cash credit facility of ₹5,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna by loan application Ex.PW1/2 on 30.10.2017 which was sanctioned by sanction letter latter dated 22.11.2017 and executed hypothecation agreement (goods, book debts plant & machinery) dated 22.11.2017 Ex.PW1/9. From the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi and documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/30 it has also been proved that the defendant No.1 also executed agreement to pledge of goods to secure a demand cash credit/ loan dated 22.11.2017 Ex.PW1/10, declaration of sole proprietorship, letter of lien, letter of continuity, demand promissory note and other necessary documents on 22.11.2017 and defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor of the cash credit facility availed by the defendant No. 1 by executing letter of guarantee certificate. From the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi it has also been proved that the defendant No. 1 CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 16 of 20 again applied for emergency credit overdraft facility of ₹1,00,000/- vide application dated 07.5.2020 which was sanctioned to her on 08.5.2020. From the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi it has also been proved that the account of emergency credit overdraft facility was closed by the defendants on 23.6.2021.
14. In their written statement the defendants have admitted that the defendant No. 1 took the loan (Demand Cash Credit/Loan) of ₹5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.10.2017, and thereafter, she further took loan of ₹1,00,000/- as Emergency Credit Overdraft Facility. In their written statement the defendants claim that the defendant No. 1 regularly paid the EMI of above-said loan to the plaintiff, but during Covid-19 pandemic she could not pay some EMIs to the plaintiff. Thus, in their written statement the defendants have not denied that the defendant No. 1 took two credit/loan facilities from the plaintiff. The defence of the defendants is that the executives of the erstwhile plaintiff bank had obtained the signatures of the defendant No. 1 on the various documents without allowing her to readout their contents; and that the defendant No. 1 paid an amount of ₹25,086/- on 23.6.2021 and ₹7039.10 paise on 24.3.2022 to the plaintiff.
15. As found by this court during discussion on issue No. 1, it has not been proved that the executives of the erstwhile plaintiff bank had obtained the signatures of the defendant No. 1 on the various documents without allowing her to readout their contents. The defendants have not produced any evidence to show that they have CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 17 of 20 discharged their liability towards the plaintiff, fully or partially.
16. As per the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi and statement of account Ex.PW1/27, after availing cash credit facility in the sum of ₹5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.11.2017, the defendant No. 1 made some payments and thereafter, she failed to deposit the money due against her, and therefore, her account No. 0380300013509 was declared as NPA on 31.3.2021 when the defendant No. 1 owed a sum of ₹3,74,054.78 paise to the plaintiff. As per the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 also took loan of ₹1,00,000/- as emergency credit overdraft facility in account No. 0380300013554, which was not maintained by her in regular manner, therefore, at the request of the defendants the plaintiff transferred the due amount of ₹25,086/- in account No. 0380300013554 from CC account No. 0380250013509 and account No. 0380300013554 was closed on 23.6.2021. As per the testimony of PW1 Chanchal Joshi and documents Ex.PW1/27 and Ex.PW1/28, as on 29.02.2024 the defendant No. 1 as principal debtor and the defendant No. 2 as her guarantor were liable to pay ₹3,74,054.78 paise as principal overdue to the plaintiff.
17. In the plaint, apart from the said amount of ₹3,74,054.78 paise, the plaintiff has also claimed ₹1,90,946.90 paise on account of interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum, accrued upto 29.2.2024 and ₹5,090/- as other charges. As per clause 3.4 of Master Circular - Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning Pertaining to Advances issued by the Reserve Bank of CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 18 of 20 India (RBI/2022-23/15 DOR.STR.REC.4/21.04.048/2022-23 dated 01.4.2022), "On an account turning NPA, banks should reverse the interest already charged and not collected by debiting Profit and Loss account and stop further application of interest". However, as per the said Master Circular, "[B]anks may continue to record such accrued interest in a Memorandum account in their books. For the purpose of computing Gross Advances, interest recorded in the Memorandum account should not be taken into account". The defendants, nevertheless, are liable to pay such interest to the plaintiff (see: Girish Chandra Tiwari v. Uco Bank Lucknow Circle (U.P.) and others, 2015 (1) ALJ 503). Therefore, the plaintiff is found entitled to recover a sum of ₹5,70,091.68 paise from the defendants. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Re: Issue No. 3.
18. Onus of proof qua this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been found entitled to recover ₹5,70,091.68 paise from the defendants for the period prior to filing of the suit.
19. According to the plaintiff, the defendants approached the erstwhile plaintiff bank for availing cash credit facility and availed the said facility on the terms and conditions agreed between them followed by execution of a written agreement by the defendants. As per the agreement signed between the parties, the agreed rate of interest between the parties was 10.60% plus MCLR 2% which was valid for the entire tenor of the cash credit facility. Since there is agreement between the CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 19 of 20 parties and the nature of the transaction is commercial in nature, therefore, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 11.55% per annum. The said interest, however, will be simple interest without monthly rest. Thus, the plaintiff is also found entitled to simple interest at the rate of 11.55% per annum on the amount of ₹5,70,091.68 paise from the date of institution of the suit till the payment of the said sum of ₹5,70,091.68 paise by the defendants to the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
20. In view of above discussion and my findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is found entitled to recover a sum of ₹5,70,091.68 paise from the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff will also be entitled to pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 11.55% per annum on ₹5,70,091.68 paise from the date of institution of the suit till the payment of the said amount made by the defendants to the plaintiff.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and after compliance file be sent to the records.
Digitally signed by MANOJPronounced in the open court MANOJ KUMAR
on the 24th day of December, 2025 KUMAR Date:
2025.12.26
17:20:38 +0530
(MANOJ KUMAR-1)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
Central District: Tis Hazari: Delhi
CS (COMM) No. 417/2024 Page No. 20 of 20