Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs ) M/S Harshit Trading Co on 16 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK, SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE CUM-RENT CONTROLLER ( NORTH-
WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO. 1065/18
CNR NO: DLNW030015902018
Canara Bank
Through its AR Sh. Ramesh Kumar
Wazirpur Branch, 18 Community Centre,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110052
...Plaintiff
Versus
1.) M/s Harshit Trading Co.
Through its proprietor Sh. Joginder Pal S/o Inder Pal B-85 X, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033 House No.71, Block E-2, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086
2.) Smt. Shakuntala W/o Sh. Jagat Singh E-4/40, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086 ....Defendants Date of institution of the Suit : 03.08.2018 Date of Arguments : 15.03.2022 Date of decision : 16.03.2022 Suit For Recovery of Rs. 2,76,300/- along with Pendente Lite and Future Interest CS No. 1065/18 Canara Bank Vs. Harshit Trading Co. 1/6 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,76,300/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The version of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and the present suit is filed through its Manager Sh. Ramesh Kumar who is duly authorized to file the same vide power of attorney.
3. The defendant No.1 is proprietorship concerned of Sh. Joginder Pal and defendant no.2 is guarantor. In the month of March, 2016, the defendants approached the plaintiff and applied for a credit facility in the form of Open Cash Credit (OCC) limit against stocks and book debt for Rs.2,00,000/- for needs and requirements of working capital for his business. Application of the defendants was considered by the plaintiff and an OCC limit against stocks and book debt for Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned to the defendants vide sanction dated 02.04.2016. The defendant no.1 executed various loan and security documents. The defendant no.2 executed a guarantee covering letter along with stamped guarantee agreement both dated 12.04.2016 and also submitted her particulars dated 08.04.2016. The defendants though kept on utilizing the credit facility but failed to maintain the financial discipline of the account and turned negligent and failed to route their income and business transactions through CS No. 1065/18 Canara Bank Vs. Harshit Trading Co. 2/6 their account with the plaintiff. The funds were not provided by the defendants in the said account even to charge interest etc. This resulted in serious defaults by defendants in maintaining this account. The defendant's account was classified as NPA on 05.02.2017. The plaintiff also got issued legal notice dated 05.12.2017 to the defendants. It is further stated that as on date a total liability of the defendants is Rs.2,76,300/-. Hence, the present suit.
4. Defendants were served with the summons in the present case, however, they failed to appear despite service of summons and accordingly vide order dated 26.03.2019, the defendant no.2 was proceeded ex parte and vide order dated 11.10.2021, the defendant no.1 was proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, the matter was listed for ex-parte evidence.
5. During pendency of the case, plaintiff moved application for substitution of AR. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.03.2022, Sh. Manish Kumar Pathak has been substituted as new AR of the plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff, in order to prove its case, has examined Sh. Manish Kumar Pathak as PW-1, who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A has testified all those facts as are pleaded in the plaint and has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of GPA in favour of PW1 Mark Y, application along with supporting CS No. 1065/18 Canara Bank Vs. Harshit Trading Co. 3/6 documents submitted by defendants Ex. PW1/1(Colly), sanction letter dated 02.04.2016 Ex. PW1/2, loan and security documents Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/11, guarantee covering letter along with stamped guarantee agreement both dated 12.04.2016 Ex. PW1/12 and Ex PW1/13, particulars of defendant no.2 dated 08.04.2016 Ex. PW1/14, letters dated 21.09.2016 and 18.02.2017 Ex. PW1/15 to Ex. PW1/17, legal notice dated 05.12.2017 Ex. PW1/18, certified copy of statement of account Ex. PW1/19, copy of GPA of previous AR Mark Z. Thereafter the ex-parte evidence was closed.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the material on record.
8. The plaintiff during his evidence has proved the documents i.e. Loan and security documents, sanction letter, guarantee agreement, legal notice and statement of account. PW-1 has categorically deposed regarding the taking of facility of open cash credit by the defendant no.1, executing of documents by defendant no.1 as well as the defendant no.2 for availing the aforesaid facility and also deposed regarding the factum of failure to repay the outstanding amount despite service of legal notice.
9. Since the defendants have already been proceeded ex-parte in this matter, oral as well as documentary ex-parte evidence led CS No. 1065/18 Canara Bank Vs. Harshit Trading Co. 4/6 by the plaintiff remains uncontroverted and unchallenged, hence, the Court finds no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff's witness. Documentary ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff deserves to be accepted on its face value. In view of the un-rebutted and unchallenged oral and documentary ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove the case as set up in the plaint and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree.
10. In the light of the above discussions, the present suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a total sum of Rs.2,76,300/-.
11. The Plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum, but, in view of this court, ends of justice would be met if pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till date of its realization is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, that too on the outstanding sum of Rs.2,76,300/-.
Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled for pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% only from the date of filing the suit till realization of the decreetal amount of Rs.2,76,300/-.
12. If any payment is ever made by defendants to the plaintiff with respect to the transaction in question then the same shall be deducted from the decreetal amount.
CS No. 1065/18 Canara Bank Vs. Harshit Trading Co. 5/6
13. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
14. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MEENU MEENU KAUSHIK
Announced in open court KAUSHIK Date:
2022.03.16
On 16.03.2022 15:53:05 +0530
(Meenu Kaushik)
Senior Civil Judge/ Rent Controller
North West District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 1065/18 Canara Bank Vs. Harshit Trading Co. 6/6