Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India A Corporation ... vs Sh. P. Mohan Sundaram S/O Sh. ... on 31 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR
CIVIL JUDGE 05: (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 216/12
Unique ID No.
State Bank of India a corporation constituted
under State Bank of India Act, 1955,
having its head office at State Bank Bhawan,
Mumbai, local head office at 11,
Parliament Street, New Delhi one of its
Branch at Janakpuri, Delhi
and as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
at 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road,
New Delhi.
Plaintiffs..........
Versus
1. Sh. P. MOhan Sundaram S/o Sh. Padmanabham Selvaraj,
R/o RZ869, Gali No. 5, Main Sagarpur,
New Delhi110046.
Also at :
Sh. P. Mohan Sundaram S/o Sh. Padmanabham Selvaraj,
R/o H. No. 18, Vanna Vil Street,
Barthyar Nagar, Post Pattapiram,
Chennai72.
C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 1/7
2. Smt. Indira Mohan Sundaram W/o Sh. Mohan Sundaram,
R/o RZ869, Gali No. 5, Main Sagarpur,
New Delhi110046.
Also at :
Smt. Indira Mohan Sundaram W/o Sh. Mohan Sundaram,
R/o H. No. 18, Vanna Vil Street,
Barthyar Nagar, Post Pattapiram,
Chennai72.
Date of filing : 03.08.2012
Date on which order has been reserved : 27.01.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.01.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant for sum of Rs. 2,09,580/ with cost, pendent lite and future interest @ 17 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
2. Plaintiff's Version: Plaintiff stated that the The plaintiff bank is a Corporate Body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955) having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. It is a body corporate with perpetual succession and it can sue or be sued in its own C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 2/7 name. It has various local heard offices including one at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi01 and various throughout India including one Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at 23, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, which is under the administrative control of local head office at New Delhi. Sh. P.K. Sehgal, duly authorized officer who is fully conversant with the facts of the present suit, whereby he is fully authorized and empowered to sign verify and institute the present suit/ plaint and any other pleading as may be just and necessary in the interest of the plaintiff bank and to do all and every corelated acts on behalf of the plaintiff bank under regularization 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 framed by Reserve Bank of India, exercising powers conferred on it under State Bank of India Act, 1955, read with previous approvals of Central Government and with Gazette Notification Published in Gazette of India including one dated 27.3.1987.
On 24.11.2005 the plaintiff bank had granted the personal loan of Rs. 2,00,000/ application form dated 24.11.2005 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ was disbursed to defendant no.1 vide loan account No. 63001572479 on 24.11.2005 whereas the defendant no.2 stood guarantor of defendant no.1. This loan was availed by defendant no.1 under the terms and conditions of the documents like Arrangement Letter, Personal Agreement, Irrevocable Letter of Authority, etc dated 24.11.2005, which were signed, executed and delivered by defendant at the time of availing the said facility to plaintiff. Defendant no.1 agree to pay interest on the personal loan at the rate of Rs. 2 % belong SBAR which was 10.75% per C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 3/7 annum i.e effective rate of interest was 12.75 % per annum with monthly rests. The rate of interest is subject to rise and fall from time to time as per banking guidelines. The defendant no.1 was to repay the aforesaid personal loan with 48 EMI of Rs.5,328/, the first of which was payable by subsequent month and the subsequent installments on or before the same date of each succeeding installments on or before the same date of each succeeding month thereafter till the entire loan is full repaid with interest and other penalty costs, charges and expenses. It was also agreed that in case of default in payment of any installment, the whole of the amount due shall become payable at once in lump sum to plaintiff. But defendant failed to maintain the financial discipline, as defendant did not pay the amount regularly, whereby defendant's account become irregular and sticky. The officer of plaintiff had been contacting defendant time and again to impress upon defendant to regularize the account and defendant admitted his liability time and again but to no effect. It was also agreed that in case of default in payment of any installment or any irregularity in said loan account No. 63001572479, the bank reserves the right to levy a higher rate of interest as it deems fit.
Defendant failed to maintain the financial discipline so loan account No. 63001572479 of defendant. Now a sum of Rs. 2,09,580/ is due from the defendant in the said loan account no. 63001572479 as on 31.7.2012 which details are given below: Amount due including interest Rs.1,12,466/ C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 4/7 Accrued interest but no applied Rs. 97, 114 In the loan account of defendant no.1 from 01.6.2008 to 31.7.2012 ___________ Total outstanding is a sum of Rs. 2,09,580/ ___________ Thereafter, plaintiff served a legal notice dated 16.7.2012 upon the defendant but the defendant paid no heed. Hence, the present suit has been filed for the above mentioned relief.
3. Defendant has been duly served by way of publication in the newspaper "THE HINDU " dated 09.11.2013 but neither the defendants have appeared nor they filed any appearance. Therefore, vide order dated 16.12.2013, defendants have been proceeded with Exparte.
4. In the witness box, plaintiff has examined only one witness Sh. Rakesh Arora i.e AR of the plaintiff bank as PW1. PW1 has relied upon the following documents:
(i) Gazette Notification is Ex. PW 1/1
(ii) Gazette notification of merger is Ex. PW 1/2
(ii) Loan application is Ex. PW1/3.
(iii) Loan Arrangement letter is Ex. PW1/4
(iv) Personal Loan Agreement is Ex. PW1/5.
(v) Guarantee Agreement is Ex. PW1/6.
C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 5/7
(vi) Copy of Legal notice is Ex. PW1/7
(vii) Postal receipts is Ex. PW1/8
(viii) Legal notice dated 20.12.2011 is Ex. PW1/7.
(ix) Courier receipts is Ex. PW 1/12 to Ex. PW 1/15
(x) Statement of Account is Ex. PW1/16.
(xi) Certificate of accrued interest is Ex. PW 1/17
(xii) Certificate of accuracy of computer data is Ex. PW 1/18
(xiii) Copy of I card of defendant as Mark A
(xiv) Copy of passport as Mark B
(xv) Copy of telephone bill as Mark C
(xvi) Copy of certificate of earning as Mark D
(xvii) Copy of salary slip as Mark E.
5. The testimony of plaintiff remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged.
6. To discharge his onus, plaintiff has filed on record sufficient documents. Perusal of all these document shows that defendant had taken a loan from the plaintiff bank but has failed to discharge his liability to pay.
7. In view of the facts mentioned by the Plaintiff and documents filed by the Plaintiff, and the fact that defendant has not lead any evidence and the above discussion the suit is liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 6/7
8. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly, decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,09,580/ along with pendent lite interest @ 7 % per annum till the date of decree.
Cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court On 31st January, 2014 (Prabh Deep Kaur) Civil Judge05(West) THC/Delhi/31.01.2014 C.S No. : 216/12 State Bank of India Vs. P. Mohan Sundaram Page No. 7/7