Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Ms. Gurjeet Kaur on 18 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-04, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLSH01-006681-2022
CS (Comm) No. 575/2022
In the matter of :-
Canara Bank
A body Corporate Consituted
Under Banking Companies (Acquisitions
& Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970
Having its Head Office at :
6648, 112, JC Road, PB Halsurpete,
Bengaluru -560001 (Karnataka)
Also having branch office at :
Shankar Nagar, Delhi-110051
......Plaintiff
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Arun Yadav)
VERSUS
Ms. Gurjeet Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Gurender Singh
R/o A-40, First Floor, Gali No.5,
Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-110051
Also at :
M/s Satguru Fashions
Through Gurmeet Kaur
H. No. 49, Gali No.5,
Old Govind Pura Extension,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
......Defendant
(Defendant is ex-parte)
Date of institution of the case : 11.10.2022
Date of final arguments : 10.08.2023
Date of judgment : 18.08.2023
CS (Comm) No. 575/2022 1 /5
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The plaintiff Canara Bank has filed the present suit seeking a decree against the defendant for recovery of Rs.11,44,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs Forty Four Thousand) as on 24.09.2022 with pendente lite and future interest @ 11.80% per annum as well as costs of the suit.
2. Plaintiff has averred that on 22.09.2017, Sh. Gurender Singh, the husband of the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance and was sanctioned O.D. Limit of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lacs) which was renewed on 19.01.2019 at the request of Sh. Gurender Singh. On 29.11.2019, on the request of Sh. Gurender Singh the O.D. Limit was converted into two term loans vide term loan account No.1682746000007-WCTL for Rs.8,00,000/- and term loan account No. 1682747000003-FITL for Rs.28,408/-. Sh. Gurender Singh executed loan documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and agreed to repay the term loans in monthly installments along with interest and bank charges. As per the loan documents, the loan amount was repayable by Sh. Gurender Singh with interest @ 9.80% per annum. In case of default, the plaintiff bank would be entitled to an additional 2% penal interest over and above the rate of interest of 9.80% p.a.
3. The plaintiff bank has further averred that Sh. Gurender Singh defaulted in repayment of the loan amount. Sh. Gurender Singh died due to Covid-19 Pandemic. It is averred that after the death of Sh. Gurender Singh, the being his legal heir is bound to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff bank issued a re-call notice dated 05.07.2021 calling upon the defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount which was Rs.9,61,157/- as on 05.07.2021. However despite service of the notice, the defendant failed to respond. The plaintiff thereafter sent a legal demand notice dated 29.04.2022 to the defendant which was returned unclaimed. It is averred that as on 24.09.2022, the total outstanding due from the CS (Comm) No. 575/2022 2 /5 defendant to the plaintiff bank was Rs.11,44,000/- inclusive of interest upto 24.09.2022. In these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after availing the remedy of pre-institution mediation which closed as the defendant did not appear.
4. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant vide order dated 02.11.2022. Defendant was unserved. On an application filed under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC of the plaintiff, by order dated 10.04.2023 defendant was directed to be served by way of publication which was carried out in newspaper "Veer Arjun" edition dated 03.05.2023 after which the defendant was proceeded vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. Plaintiff bank led ex-parte evidence and examined Sh. Chanchal Kumar Verma, Officer Constituted Attorney and Office as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and placed reliance on the following documents :
1. General Power of Attorney in favour of the deponent vide Ex.PW-1/1
2. Over Draft (OD) documents dated 22.09.2017 vide Ex.PW-1/2(OSR)
3. Letter of renewal dated 19.01.2019 vide Ex.PW-1/3(OSR)
4. Request letter of defendant dated 29.11.2019 vide Ex.PW-1/4(OSR)
5. Loan Sanction Memo dated 29.11.2019 vide Ex.PW-
1/5(OSR)
6. Letter dated 29.11.2019 evidencing execution of documents vide Ex.PW-1/6(OSR)
7. Debtor Creditor Agreement dated 29.11.2019 vide Ex.PW-1/6A(OSR)
8. Debt restructuring agreement dated 29.11.2019 along with Letter of undertaking, pronote, acknowledgement of debt and documents of the defendant vide Ex.PW-1/6B (Colly-Pages 71-91) (OSR)
9. Unit visit record dated 29.11.2019 vide Ex.PW-1/7(OSR)
10. Loan recall notice dated 05.07.2019 vide Ex.PW-CS (Comm) No. 575/2022 3 /5
1/8(OSR)
11. Certified statement of account for the period 01.01.2019 to 16.09.2022 vide Ex.PW-1/9(OSR)
12. Certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act vide Ex.PW-1/10.
13. Certificate under Section 2A of the Banker's Book Evidence Act vide Ex.PW-1/10A.
14. Legal Notice dated 14.03.2022 vide Ex.PW-
1/11(OSR).
5. In his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, PW-1 has deposed on the lines of the plaint. As the defendant was ex-parte, PW-1 was not subjected to any cross-examination.
6. I have heard Sh. Arun Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. He has submitted that the defendant has failed to defend the suit. He further submitted that the defendant who is the wife and legal heir of the original borrower will be liable for the decretal amount to the extent of the estate of the deceased borrower which has come to her hands. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Jain Vs. Rajni Dhingra and Ors. reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13093 CS (OS) 378/2018 decided on 19.12.2018.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record. I have gone through the evidence led by the plaintiff. The averments in the plaint and evidence led by the plaintiff have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. In the case of Sanjeev Jain Vs. Rajni Dhingra and Ors.(supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold that the legal heirs of a deceased borrower can be proceeded against in respect of the loan availed by the deceased. However, decree passed against such legal heirs can be executed only to the extent of the estate of the deceased coming into their hands.
8. The defendant did not appear to defend the suit. The averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and evidence led has gone unrebutted.
CS (Comm) No. 575/2022 4 /5The documents filed by the plaintiff are deemed to have been admitted by the defendant. Plaintiff has placed on record, inter alia, letter of renewal Ex.PW-1/3, loan sanction memo Ex.PW-1/5, Debtor-Creditor agreement Ex.PW-1/6A, Debt restructuring agreement Ex.PW-1/6B and certified statement of account Ex.PW-1/9. Plaintiff is thus found entitled to recovery of Rs.11,44,000 (Rs. Eleven Lacs Forty Four Thousand) against the defendant.
9. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 11.80% per annum which seems to be excessive. Grant of interest @ 9% per annum is found to be just and reasonable. Plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of the suit.
10. Suit of the plaintiff is thus decreed in the following manner :-
(a) Plaintiff is granted a decree for recovery of Rs.11,44,000 (Rs. Eleven Lacs Forty Four Thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the suit i.e. 11.10.2022 till the date of realization against the defendant; and
(b) Plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the decree till realization.
11. Decree decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (REETESH SINGH)
court on 18th day DISTRICT JUDGE
of August 2023 (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 575/2022 5 /5