Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Kuldeep Sharma on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, DISTRICT JUDGE-15,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI.
DLCT01-013801-2016
CS DJ No. : 620229/16
Punjab National Bank,
Through its Authorized Officer
BO: New Rohtak Road.
New-Delhi-110005. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Kuldeep Sharma
S/o Shri. Vasu Dev Sharma
R/o : B-41, G-3, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095
2. Shri. Vishesh Aggarwal
Shri Devanand
R/o : 62. Gali No.5.
Kundan Nagar, Laxmi Nagar.
New-Delhi-110092 .....Defendants
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 1 of 16
Date of Institution : 04.10.2016
Date of Arguments : 05.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 19.01.2026
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.5,01,537/-
JUDGMENT:
INDEX Brief Facts Page No. 2-5 WS, Replication, Evidence Page No. 5-9 Discussion/Analysis/Findings Page No. 9-15 Conclusion Page No. 15-16 BRIEF FACTS :
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.5,01,537/- has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, D-1 as a main borrower and D-2 as a guarantor.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its circle office at Bhikaji Gama Place, Delhi, and one of its branch office at Rohtak Road, New Delhi-05 (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank').
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 2 of 16
3. That defendant no. 1 Sh. Kuldeep Sharma applied to the plaintiff bank for a car loan Rs.6,10,000/- vide his car loan application dated 26.12.2013 along with all relevant documents.
4. That the loan amount of Rs.5,99,500 was sanctioned by PNB on 27.12.2013 to D-1, which was to be repaid in 84 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.10,163/- commencing from January 2014.
5. That the defendant no. 1 authorized the plaintiff bank to recover the loan amount from his account. The loan was sanctioned on 27.12.2013 based on certain terms, including a fixed interest rate of 10.65%, a repayment tenure of 7 years, wherein Sh. Vishal Aggarwal (D-2) has stood as a guarantor.
6. That an 'Agreement of Guarantee' was duly executed by D-2 Sh.
Vishal Aggarwal with the plaintiff bank, undertaking the due and timely payment of the loan amount to the plaintiff bank in respect of the said car loan of Rs. 5,99,500/- advanced to the D-1, and his own liability to pay the same on the failure of D-1 to do so.
7. That a sum of Rs.5,99,500/- was finally granted to D-1 as a car loan, for which D-1 had purchased a "Suzuki Swift Dezire LDI Car"
bearing registration no. "DL-3CBS-9279" from an authorized dealer "TR Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd" in the first week of January 2014.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 3 of 16
8. That D-2 was a guarantor of the said car loan and is jointly and severally liable for repayment. Loan and guarantee agreements were duly executed, including a supplementary agreement dated 31.03.2014, accordingly.
9. That D-1 defaulted in making timely payment of installments and his loan account became irregular.
10.That the bank sent multiple reminders (July, August, September and October 2014) and legal notices and also informed the borrower via email, requesting regularization of the account and warning of legal action.
11.That despite notices, no payment was made by D-1 or D-2, and the loan account remained irregular due to non-payment.
12.That the cheque issued by D-1 was returned due to "insufficient funds". The account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) due to non-payment of installments.
13. That the defendants have failed and neglected to liquidate the dues of the plaintiff bank, and the plaintiff left with no other alternatives has filed the present suit against the defendants.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 4 of 16
14. It is prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs.5,01,537/- be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally, with pendent lite and future interest @24% p.a. till its realization.
15.On being served with the summons for settlement of issues, defendants filed its written statement.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS
16. In WS, defendants have taken preliminary objections that the present suit filed is a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and legal machinery; that no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants; that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has concealed the true, correct and material facts; and is filed on the basis of false and frivolous grounds, and it be dismissed accordingly.
17. On merits, letter of hypothecation dated 27.12.2013, letter of guarantee and other documents filed by the plaintiff were denied by the defendants, with the pleas that the plaintiff bank has taken the signatures of D-1 and D-2 on blank letter of hypothecation, and Agreement of Guarantee, wherein some of the terms and conditions were already typed and were not explained to them.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 5 of 16
18. That the plaintiff bank did not obtain any document regarding reimbursement of loan from the defendants.
19. That D-1 has already paid approx. Rs.2,50,000/- towards the loan amount to the plaintiff, however despite receiving the amount, the plaintiff bank deliberately did not file the account statement.
20. That D-2 Sh. Vishesh Aggarwal was never a guarantor of the said car loan taken by D-1, and the Agreement of Guarantee is a false and fabricated document.
21. That D-1 had also not executed the supplementary agreement dated 31.03.2014 for the said car loan with the plaintiff.
22. That the cheque bearing no. 210618 of PNB was not issued by D-1 to the plaintiff in lieu to discharge any existing liability or debt, and that some blank cheques were taken by the plaintiff as a security when the car loan was applied which have been misused by the plaintiff.
23. That defendants are not liable to pay any amount what-so-ever to the plaintiff bank and the suit filed on false and fabricated documents, be dismissed accordingly.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 6 of 16
24. In Replication, plaintiff denied all the contentions so taken by the defendants in the written statement.
ISSUES :
25. Vide order dated 23.07.2018, following issues were framed for consideration:-
i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,01,537/- against the defendants on account of having extended car loan on 27.12.2013 in D-1 being made borrower and D-2 as guarantor ? (OPP).
ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite & future interest on due amount @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till recovery of suit amount ? OPP.
iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for harassment to the plaintiff bank ? OPP.
iv). Whether there is absence of brevity of contract between the parties and plaintiff has fraudulently got executed the loan documents ? OPD 1 & 2.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 7 of 16
v). Whether there is absence of any agreement as to payment of interest in the blank sign loan agreement ? OPD 1 & 2.
vi). Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
26. PW1 Sh. Naresh Kumar, AR of the plaintiff, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/X which bears his signature at Point A and B and relied upon following documents which are GPA Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/Q (colly). Original GPA was subsequently produced and returned back on 26.11.2019.
27. Plaintiff further examined Sh. Gaurav Kumar as PW-2 (inadvertently mentioned as PW-1 and documents also exhibited accordingly) by way of additional evidence, in terms of his application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC allowed vide order dated 19.08.2025.
28.He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/X which bears his signature at Point A and B and relied upon following documents :
1. Copy of GPA dated 14.05.2018 Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of sanction letter of car/vehicle loan dated 27.12.2013 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of statement of account of plaintiff Ex.PW1/3.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 8 of 16
4. Certificate under Section 2 A of a Bankers Book Act and Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/4.
5. Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 Ex.PW1/5.
ISSUE-WISE ANALYSIS & FINDS
29. I have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record very carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No. iv & v :
30.Onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant no. 1 & 2.
31. Joint written statement was filed thereby both the defendants denying their liability and the loan agreement to have ever been executed by them with the plaintiff bank.
32.Thereafter, despite being given number of opportunities, neither witnesses of the plaintiff were cross-examined nor any positive evidence was led by the defendants to discharge their onus.
33. Consequently, both these issues decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 9 of 16
ISSUE No. (i) :
34. It is the main and substantive issue. Onus to prove this issue of extending/disbursing the car loan to D-1, wherein D-2 was a guarantor, and entitlement to the recovery of Rs.5,01,537/-, is upon the plaintiff.
35. Plaintiff has filed his evidence by way of affidavit of ARs Sh. Naresh Kumar and additional affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Kumar examined as PW-1 and PW-2 (inadvertently mentioned as PW-1), which are almost identical to the allegations and averments made in the plaint.
36.Plaintiff has relied upon and proved on record number of documents executed between the plaintiff bank and defendants with respect to the loan so advanced by them in support of its case, as mentioned above.
37.Ex.PW1/B is a customer application vide which defendant Sh.
Kuldeep Sharma had applied for the loan with the plaintiff bank, which reflects that loan of Rs.6 Lakhs for a period of 7 years was applied. The application form is duly signed by the defendant no. 1 wherein his photograph is also affixed.
38.The application was duly supported with other necessary documents i.e his driving licence and Pan card which also bears the signatures of D-1.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 10 of 16
39.PW-1/C is hypothecation deed dated 27.12.2013 executed between plaintiff and D-1 on a stamp paper of value Rs.50/-, which also contains the signatures of the D-1 on each page along with his photograph on the front page, wherein the factum of advancement of term loan of Rs.5,99,500/- for purchase of Swift Dezire LDL specifically mentioned, to be repaid with interest in 84 EMI of Rs.10,163/- commencing on January, 2014.
40. The co-extensive liability of D-2 as a guarantor is also proved on record by the plaintiff in terms of 'Agreement of Guarantee' dated 27.12.2013 executed between D-2 Vishal Aggarwal and the plaintiff bank Ex.PW1/D, on a stamp paper of value Rs.100/-, whereby in categorical terms D-2 has accepted his liability, jointly and severally with D-1, to pay to the plaintiff bank on demand all outstanding dues in terms of term loan advanced by the plaintiff bank by D-1 for purchase of said vehicle on the failure of D-1 to do so.
41.Advancement and disbursement of the loan is also supported by other documents i.e. registration document dated 09.01.2014 of the vehicle, receipt wherein the details of the vehicle so purchased are given, insurance cover note along with policy, documents of state transport department NCT Delhi, and retail invoice cum sale document along with the payments of the documents of seller / dealer P. R. Sahni Motors Pvt. Ltd., which are all part of Ex.PW1/E (colly).
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 11 of 16
42.The number of letters and reminders issued to the borrower Sh. Kuldeep Sharma (D-1) and the guarantor Sh. Vishal Aggarwal (D-2) have also been proved on record in terms of Ex.PW1/G to Ex.PW1/O.
43.Defendants had disputed any advancement by the plaintiff bank in their written statements. To contradict the same, and to substantiate its case, plaintiff has also proved on record a cheque bearing no. 210618 issued from the account bearing no. 1116000100228947 of defendant Kuldeep Sharma under his signatures wherein the details of the car loan and corresponding account number are duly mentioned and Ex.PW1/P.
44.It may be noted that after filing of the written statements and taking number of opportunities to cross-examine witness PW-1 Sh. Naresh Kumar after his evidence was tendered, defendants without any reason had stopped appearing in the case.
45.In the written statements also, defendants have taken mutually contradictory pleas and defences. At one point they are altogether disputing the factum of any relationship as 'borrower and lender' between plaintiff and themselves and also of advancement of any loan.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 12 of 16
46.At some point, defendants are also disputing the documents of the loan so advanced i.e. hypothecation deed, Agreement of Guarantee and amongst others to state that the concerned bank had taken their signatures fraudulently and malafidely on blank papers/documents.
47.But at the same time, at other places, they are admitting the factum of the term loan taken by them to purchase the vehicle, as per clause-8-9 of the WS, with the pleas that D-1 has already paid approximately a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards the loan to the plaintiff, contradicting their own earlier statements noted above.
48.The defence taken by D-1 and D-2 in their written statements is very fluid having no ring of truth in it. Moreover, as noted above, defendants have not led any evidence to show that the documents are forged and fabricated or that their signatures were obtained on blank papers/documents.
49.In the light of above discussions, and the observations made thereto, plaintiff has successfully established the advancement/disbursement of car loan of a sum of Rs.5,99,500/- to D-1 for purchase of the vehicle. Plaintiff has also established the liability of D-2 who had stood as a guarantor to the aforesaid transaction on behalf of D-1. Whereas, defendants have failed to dent the case of the plaintiff by CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 13 of 16 leading any evidence.
50.This issue accordingly stands decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
INTEREST COMPONENT/DAMAGES (ISSUE No. ii & iii)
51. The question as to what interest is to be granted in the recovery suits was dealt with and considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Bank of India vs. Ravinder, wherein the Hon'ble Court answered the reference in terms as under :-
(i) Subject to a binding stipulation contained in a voluntary contract between the parties and/or an established practice or usage interest on loans and advances may be charged on periodical rests and also capitalized on remaining unpaid. The principal sum actually advanced coupled with the interest on periodical rests so capitalized is capable of being adjudged as principal sum on the date of the suit.
(ii) The principal sum so adjudged is 'such principal sum' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on which interest pendentelite and future interest i.e. post-decree interest, at such rate and for such period which the Court may deem fit, may be awarded by the Court.
(iii) Interest is not a penalty but is the compensation payable by the borrower to the lender for the deprivation for use of money.
(iv) Charging of interest on unpaid interest/compound interest is not per-say illegal but subject to specific contract, usage or statutory provision permitting it.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 14 of 16
(v) Rate of interest is excessive or its capitalization is
inequitable or is violative of law/RBI guidelines Court has power to reopen the transaction and grant relief accordingly.
(vi) Banks are entitled to charge interest with periodical rests (quarterly/half yearly etc., if permitted by directives of RBI or contractual terms.
(vii) Under Section 34 CPC, Court has discretion to award the interest on the principle sum adjudged, but not on the interest that had accrued after the date of decree.
52. Reading these guidelines, in the given facts of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate and justified, to grant interest at the rate of 9% p.a. pendentelite on the decreetal amount till its realization.
53.In so far as claim towards harassment is concerned, plaintiff has not led any positive evidence in that regard. I may state that entitlement of the plaintiff to the damages for harassment is restrictive, and only under exception circumstances, and not merely due to non-payment of the loan which is a contractual liability, and its claim for damages on that count accordingly stands rejected.
CONCLUSION / DECISION :
54. In light of above discussion and findings on the issues thereto, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its favour and against the defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.5,01,537/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 15 of 16
55. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
56.File be consigned to Record Room.
ANIL Digitally signed
by ANIL ANTIL
Date: 2026.01.23
ANTIL 15:38:36 +0530
Announced in the (Anil Antil)
open court on 23.01.2026 District Judge-15, Central Distt.
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
CS DJ No. : 620229/16 Page No. 16 of 16