Bangalore District Court
6. Based On The Above Pleadings Of The ... vs Executed The Consideration Receipt At ... on 10 January, 2023
11
COM.O.S.1216/2022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR.,B.COM,L.L.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.1216/2022
BETWEEN:
Canara Bank,
Sanjyanagara Branch,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
represented by its Branch
Manager and P.A.Holder
Sri. J.Raja Naik, S/o. Sri.
Jeevala Naik, Aged about
58 years.
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Mr. H M
Manjunath -Advocate)
AND
Sri. N.M.Putteeraiah,
S/o. Sri. Muddaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
No.160, Ground Floor,
AECS Layout,
Sanjayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 094.
: DEFENDANT
(Defendant is placed
exparte as 04.01.2023)
11
COM.O.S.1216/2022
Date of Institution of the
26.08.2022
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for
Suit for recovery of money
declaration & Possession,
Suit for injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of 06.01.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment 10.01.2023
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 04 15
(SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank for recovery of Rs.3,34,218/- together with Court cost and future interest at 9% p.a. compounded monthly from the date of suit till realization.
2. The Brief facts of the Plaint are as follows:-
The Defendant approached the Plaintiff Bank for sanction of Other Secured Loan for the purpose of purchase of Xerox Machine and stationery business. Considering the said 11 COM.O.S.1216/2022 application, the Plaintiff Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Defendant on 11.04.2019. The Defendant availed the loan facility (0483/991/352) of 3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff Bank on 11.04.2019 and executed the Consideration Receipt and Composite Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff Bank. The Defendant agreed to repay the aforesaid loan amount in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.6,604/- together with interest at the rate of 10.4% p.a. compounded monthly rest till the loan is completely liquidated. The Defendant has agreed to pay varied rate of Interest as notified by the Bank from time to time and also agreed to waive notice of such variation from time to time. The Defendant has agreed to pay overdue interest at the rate of 1.75% p.a. over and above the agreed rate in case of default. The Defendant has made some part payments in respect of the aforesaid loan account and failed to repay the balance loan amount with interest at the agreed terms. In spite of several requests and personal approaches and notices issued by the Plaintiff Bank. Therefore, the Plaintiff Bank has issued Legal Notice to the Defendant on 04.04.2022 calling upon the Defendant to repay the balance loan amount together with interest accrued there on. The Defendant has failed to comply with the demand made there on. Hence, this suit for recovery of the balance loan amount due by the Defendant.11
COM.O.S.1216/2022
4. Inspite of paper publication, the Defendant has not appeared before this court, after waiting for 30 days, i.e., the time limit for filing written statement, he was placed ex-parte on 04.01.2023.
5. The Plaintiff has examined PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. I have heard the arguments of the Advocate for the Plaintiff.
6. Based on the above pleadings of the Plaintiff, the following points arise for my consideration :-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the Suit Claim from the Defendant ?
2. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above Points are as under:
1. Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
2. Point No.2 :- As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- The Plaintiff Bank substantiate of this case examined its Manager Sri. Raja Naik. as PW.1. PW.1 in his evidence reiterated averments of the Plaint, and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.
11COM.O.S.1216/2022
9. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 2000 - Karnataka - 234 (Syed Ismail vs. Smt. Shamshia Begum), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as follows :-
"3. The impugned order does not disclose the nature of pleading placed by the plaintiff and whether there is prima facie material to grant a decree in his favour. A judgement in favour of the plaintiff is not automatic. The Court has to consider the case of the plaintiff and grant a decree in his favour. The learned trial Judge has not referred to the pleadings of the plaintiff and the documents produced by him to substantiate even a prima facie case for grant of a decree in his favour. Therefore, the judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff is not automatic on failure of the opposite party to put his defence. The Court can grant a judgement in favour of the party only upon consideration of the case of the plaintiff including appreciation of pleadings and evidence."
10. The averments of the Plaint, evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.2 to Ex.P4 discloses that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff Bank for sanction of Other Secured Loan for the purpose of purchase of Xerox Machine and stationery business. Considering the said application, the Plaintiff Bank sanctioned a loan of 11 COM.O.S.1216/2022 Rs.3,00,000/- to the Defendant on 11.04.2019.
11. As per the terms and conditions of sanction letter, the Defendant executed the Consideration Receipt at Ex.P.2 in favour of the Plaintiff Bank and Composite Hypothecation Agreement both dated 11.04.2019 at Ex.P.3. The Defendant agreed to repay the aforesaid loan amount in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.6,604/- together with interest at the rate of 10.4% p.a. compounded monthly rest till the loan is completely liquidated. The Defendant has agreed to pay varied rate of Interest as notified by the Bank from time to time and also agreed to waive notice of such variation from time to time. The Defendant has agreed to pay overdue interest at the rate of 1.75% p.a. over and above the agreed rate in case of default.
12. The Defendant has made some part payments in respect of the aforesaid loan account and failed to repay the balance loan amount with interest at the agreed terms. In spite of several requests and personal approaches and notices issued by the Plaintiff Bank. The Plaintiff Bank has issued Legal Notice to the Defendant on 04.04.2022 at Ex.P.5 calling upon the Defendant to repay the balance loan amount together with interest accrued there on. The Defendant has failed to comply with the demand made there on.
11COM.O.S.1216/2022
13. From Ex.P.6 the Statement of accounts speaks to the effect that the Defendant is due amount of RS. 3,31,828/-. The Defendants have availed loan and have not repaid the same, the Plaintiff claimed the interest at the rate of 9% per annum and calculated the interest from 01.07.2022 till filing of the suit and calculated the interest Rs. 2489.46. So, the total due amount is Rs. 3,34,218/-. Hence the Plaintiff proved that the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim amount as on the date of suit and with interest.
14. The above mentioned transactions commenced from 11.04.2019 and the defendant had made the last payment on 08.09.2020 and the suit filed on 26.08.2022 is within the limitation period.
15. In this case in spite of paper publication, the Defendant is not appeared and denied the claim of the Plaintiff Hence, it shows the Defendants admitted the case of the Plaintiff. The evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 are remained unchallenged. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitle for recovery of the suit claim amount of Rs. 3,34,218/- with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount. Hence, I answer this Point in " Affirmative".
11COM.O.S.1216/2022
16. Point No.2 : -Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The Defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,34,218/- together with Court costs, current and future interest at 9% per annum compounded monthly from the date of suit till the date of realization.
Draw Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Plaintiff and Defendant to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
( Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, verified and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of January, 2023).
(SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
11COM.O.S.1216/2022 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1 Sri.Raja Naik LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Application for credit facilities Ex.P.2 Consideration receipt dt 11.04.2019 Ex.P.3 Composite hypothecation agreement Ex.P.4 Office copy of the legal notice dt 04.04.2022 Ex.P.5 & P.5(a) Unserved RPAD and notice Ex.P.6 Statement of account with certificate LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NIL (SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR), LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, 11 COM.O.S.1216/2022 Bengaluru.