Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Jmd Scales And Systems on 23 January, 2026
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURTS)-03
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023
CNR No. DLSW01-004333-2023
Punjab National Bank,
Having its head office at:
Plot No. 4, Dwarka Sector-10,
New Delhi-110075.
Having its Branch Office at:
Kothi No. 3, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075. .....Plaintiff
Versus
Pankaj Srivastava,
Proprietor of M/s JMD Scales & Systems,
BA-60, Mayapuri Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110034.
Also at:
Flat no. 741,
Pocket GH-5 & 7, Meera Bagh,
Pashim Vihar, New Delhi-110087. ..... Defendant
Date of institution 11.05.2023
Judgment reserved on 06.01.2026
Date of Judgment 23.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit through Sh. Ritesh Kukreja, Senior Manager of the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs. 10,73,002.78/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
Judgment 1 of 9
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
Plaint
2. It is averred that the plaintiff bank is inter alia engaged in the business of financing /lending money apart from other portfolios and the defendant is the borrower who approached the plaintiff bank with request for grant of Cash Credit Loan Facility.
3. It is stated that the said Loan Facility was granted to the defendant against Hypothecation / Collateral Security of Stock dated 05.02.2016 as described in stock statement which was to be renewed annually. It is stated that the plaintiff sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on 05.02.2016 to the defendant in loan account no. 4447008700000174.
4. It is averred that the defendant become irregular in payments which was to be made as per schedule of loan. The defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and was not regular in the payment of the installments despite numerous reminders through post, telephone and thus the account of the defendant became irregular and his loan account was declared as NPA on 10.05.2021.
5. The plaintiff through its counsel served a notice dated 29.01.2022 upon the defendant and demanded the outstanding amount but the defendant did not comply with the said notice. It is stated that the defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,73,002.78/- which the defendant Judgment 2 of 9 CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
did not pay despite legal notice and mediation proceedings before DSLSA Mediation and hence, the present suit.
Written Statement
6. Defendant has stated that the plaintiff has concealed material facts and has not disclosed that the defendant were continuously paying the EMIs to the Bank without any default, and during Covid -19, pandemic some EMI of the above-mentioned loan was un-paid.
7. It is stated that when defendant approached to deposit the EMIs of the said loan to the bank it reflected that some additional charges levied upon the said loan, without assigning any reason to the defendant, the defendant made several requests to plaintiff to give reason for levied excess charges upon the loan amount but plaintiff failed to do the same.
Replication
8. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated its claim and stated that the written statement filed by the defendant is based on false, concocted, imaginary and manipulated facts.
Issues
9. On 08.07.2025, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 10,73,002.78/- as prayed in the plaint? OPP Judgment 3 of 9 CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
2. If answer to issue no.1 is affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
3. Relief.
Evidence
10. To prove its case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of General Power of Attorney of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of loan application form for Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna along with supporting documents as Ex. PW1/2 (colly)
3. Copy of Hypothecation of goods and book debts to secure cash credit facility dated 05.02.2016 as Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
4. Statement of Accounts of defendant as Ex.PW1/4.
5. Legal notice dated 15.12.2022 along with postal receipt as Ex. PW1/5.
6. Copy of Sanction Letter of Cash Credit Limit dated 05.02.2016 as Ex. PW1/6 (colly).
7. Copy of Specimen signature form as Ex. PW1/7.
8. Non- Starter report as Ex.PW1/8 & 10.
9. Legal notice dated 29.01.2022 as Ex. PW1/9.
Judgment 4 of 9
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
10. The Certificate under Section 2A of Bankers Book Evidence Act and 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/11.
11. Statement of Truth as Ex. PW1/12.
11. Defendant Pankaj Srivastav examined himself as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. In his cross examination defendant deposed as under:
I took a CC limit of Rs. 10 lacs from the plaintiff bank. I have not filed any record to show that how much money is still outstanding against me. My signatures are appearing on the loan application Ex. PW1/2 at point A and my photograph is appearing on the same at point B. I had also submitted a copy of my license which I got from Govt. of NCT of Delhi to run my business. Same is now Ex. DW1/X-1.
I also executed the document Ex.PW1/3 i.e. Hypothetication of my goods and debt. The same is bearing my signatures on each page at point A. There is no dispute in respect of the bank statement relied upon by the plaintiff bank in respect of my outstanding. Since my business got closed that I why I was unable to pay my outstanding balance. I am still ready to make payment in installments. It is correct that an amount of Rs. 5,62,500/- was received in my account as claim from Credit Guarantee, Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises. The statement of account till 30.11.2025 shown to me is correct, now Ex. DW1/X-2.
12.I have heard counsel for the plaintiff at length and have perused the material available on record.
Judgment 5 of 9
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
Discussions & Analysis
13. Documentary evidence led by the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff bank sanctioned the credit limit to the defendant vide Sanction Letter of Cash Credit Limit as Ex PW1/6 on 05.02.2016. Defendant during course of his cross- examination admitted that he took Cash Credit Limit from the plaintiff bank for Rs 10,00,000/-.
14. Defendant also admitted that he executed Ex.PW1/3 i.e. Hypothecation of the goods and debt. DW1 deposed that there is no dispute in respect of the statement of account as Ex.PW1/4 relied upon by the plaintiff bank in respect of the outstanding amount.
15. As per Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving documents rests on the plaintiff, and once plaintiff creates a strong prima-facie case, the onus may shift to the defendant to disprove it. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (2022) 20 SCC 233, observed as under:
78. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden to prove its claim is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that burden and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff of the same.
79. Where, however, evidence has been led by the contesting parties, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and truth or otherwise must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties."
Judgment 6 of 9
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
16. Plaintiff has duly proved Copy of loan application form duly filled by the defendant for Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna along with supporting documents as Ex. PW1/2, copy of Hypothecation of goods and book debts to secure cash credit facility dated 05.02.2016 as Ex. PW1/3, Statement of Accounts of defendant in respect of the outstanding amount as Ex.PW1/4, legal notice dated 15.12.2022 as Ex. PW1/5 along with Sanction Letter of Cash Credit Limit dated 05.02.2016 as Ex. PW1/6 (colly).
17.The defendant has not disputed any fact and has also admitted the outstanding amount and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.
Issue No.2: If answer to issue no. 1 is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
18. In Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra & Ors.
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"55. .............
(1) Though interest can be capitalised on the analogy that the interest falling due on the accrued date and remaining unpaid, partakes the character of amount advanced on that date, yet penal interest, which is charged by way of penalty for non-payment, cannot be capitalised.
Further interest, i.e. interest on interest, whether simple, compound or penal, cannot be claimed on the amount of penal interest. Penal interest cannot be capitalised. It will be opposed to public policy.
(8) Award of interest pendente-lite and post- decree is discretionary with the Court as it is Judgment 7 of 9 CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de-hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente-lite and post decree inter-est at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner."
19.Grant of pendente-lite and future interest is within discretion of the Court. Keeping in view of the nature / purpose of loan and current bank rates, interest @ 7 % per annum will be just and reasonable. Thus, it is held that defendant shall be liable to pay an interest @ 7 % p.a to the plaintiff bank on the principal amount.
20. Relief: In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendants. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 10,73,002.78/-. (Rupees Ten lakh Seventy Three Thousand Two Rupees and Seventy Eight Paisa only) from the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest @ 7 % per annum from date of institution till realization of the entire amount. The plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Judgment 8 of 9
CS (COMM) No. 233/2023 " Punjab National Bank Vs Pankaj Srivastava"
A copy of this judgment be given to both the parties to the dispute through electronic mail, if the particulars of the same have been furnished, or otherwise, in terms of Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 23rd January 2026.
Digitally signed by GAUTAM Gautam Manan GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date:
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03 2026.01.23 14:33:48 South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi +0530 Judgment 9 of 9