Delhi District Court
Central Bank Of India vs Sh. Sandeep Banerjee on 25 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH): ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Suit No.140/13
Central Bank of India,
A body Corporate Constituted under
the Banking Companies Act, 1970
having its head office at Chander Mukhi Nariman point
Mumbai,
Branch Office at
10, Community Centre,
Lawrance Road Industrial Area
Delhi. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sandeep Banerjee
s/o Late Sh. S.C. Banerjee
r/o 81, Gulab Vihar Apartment
Sector 8, Rohini
Service be also effected at
C/o Ram Kishan
S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh
R/o WB134C, Shakarpur,
Delhi.
2. Sh. Ram Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Raje Lal
R/.o A1/42B, Keshav Puram,
New Petrol Pump, Delhi.
Service be also effected at
(i) H126 first floor (Fblock)
Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 1/6
Kilokari village,
New Delhi.
and
(ii) Shift officer NDPL,
Vijay Nagar, Kingsway Camp
Delhi.
3. Delhi Jal Board
through its executive Engineer (NW) III,
Delhi Jal Board, Overhead Tank,
Ashok Vihar Delhi52.
Now this office shifted to
Chandrawal Civil Plant,
water works near Timarpur,
Delhi. ........Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.08.2014
Date Reserve for orders : 25.01.2014
Date of Decision : 25.01.2014
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application for leave to defend moved on behalf of the defendant no.2 as well as disposal of the suit in accordance thereof.1 (1) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff bank is a body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act having its one of the branches at Lawrence Road Industrial Area. The present suit is being filed through Sh. Basant Lal, Sr. Manager who and constituted attorney of the plaintiff bank.
That defendant no.1 was working as a Assistant Engineer with Delhi Jal Board derfdt no.3 and applied for a personal loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ vide his loan application 1 Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 2/6 which was duly sanctioned vide the sanctioned letter dt. 24.02.2005. That defdt no.3, the employer of defdt no. 1, confirming the financial status gave an undertaking dt. 04.03.2005 assuring that the plaintiff bank that defdt no. 3 shall deduct the installment amount of Rs. 4025/ from the monthly salary of defdt no.1 & also assured that in case of his cessation of services, the balance would be deducted from the terminal benefits of defdt no.1 on receipt of the intimation from the plaintiff bank. That on 08.03.2005 various documents were got executed viz. the letter of waiver, interest, demand promissory note, consent clause, letter of deposit of advance cheque by defdt no.1 inf avour of the plaintiff for the disbursement of the personal loan. That defdt no.2 stood as a guarantor and signed various documents i.e form of guarantee, consent clause to the executed by the guarantor and guarantor consent letter on the said date. However, defdts failed to maintain the financial discipline which constrained the plaintiff to issue legal notice dt. 25.08.2008 & eventually file the present suit u/o 37 for recovery.
(2) The defendants were duly served. However, defendant no.1 did not enter his appearance and the suit of the plaintiff was eventually decreed in his favour qua defdt no. 1 vide orders dt. 19.07.2012 passed by Ld PO .
(3) Defdt no.3 the employer was proceeded exparte on 04.07.2012 by the orders of my Ld Predecessor.
(4) As regards defendant no. 2 he was duly served and filed the instant application for leave to defend on 28.05.2010.
(4) The main grounds taken for grant of leave to defend by defdt no.2 are as follows:
(i)The defdt no.2 never stood as a guarantor to the loan taken by defdt no.1 from the plaintiff but merely signed as a witness.
Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 3/6
(ii) That defdt no.2 was made to sign blank papers by the plaintiff bank.
The two grounds are dealt with as follows:
5. It is the case of the defdt no.2 that he merely signed the loan documents/blank forms as a witness & not as a guarantor. Not a single document has been filed by the defdt no.2 to show that he signed as a witness. It appears to be a face saving exercise by the defdt no.2 when the officials of the plaintiff approached and asked him to repay the loan. Implidely defdt no.2 admits that he had at least signed the loan documents. There is no avernment made that he signed the loan/ guarantee documents under any pressure or coercion.
6. I have carefully gone through the guarantee agreement, the consent clause and guarantor consent letter which are placed in original by the plaintiff. All the said documents bear the signatures of defdt no.2 on every page. It is pertinent to mention that the word "guarantor" is very clearly and specifically printed. Against this printed word "guarantor" the defdt no. 2 has signed on every page. Thus, it is highly improbable that while signing the said document the defdt no.2 did not read the printed word guarantor.
7. Further the contention of the defdt no.2 that blank papers were got signed by him is a mere sham since the entire loan agreement/guarantee documents are printed and not blank.
It is not disputed that defdt no. 2 is a literate and qualified person. It is highly improbable that the defdt no.2 signed the printed loan/documents guarantee without having read the terms and conditions.
8. Signs on the documents is not disputed. The only defence is that he signed as a witness & not as a guarantor. Even then he would have at least gone through the contents of the loan/guarantee documents.
At this stage, reliance is placed on the case of R.L. Ramchandani V Narain Dass , Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 4/6 AIR 1992, Bombay 432 which states that if the defdts admits his signatures on the voucher burden of proving that the voucher was signed on blank is on the defendant. As discussed above, the defendant no.2 has not filed any document to show that he was forced to sign a blank papers on the contrary the loan and guarantee documents are printed.
In view of the aforesaid observations, I see no merits in the application. Hence application for leave to defend of defdt no.2 is dismissed.
9. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in his favour even qua defendant no.2 u/o 37 CPC. Through the original loan documents, promissory notes etc the plaintiff has proved that the defendant 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,01,096/ to the plaintiff. Further the guarantee form, consent letter of the guarantor etc also proved that defendant no.2 also stood as a "guarantor" to the said loan. Legal notice dt. 25.02.2008 & the postal receipt shows that despite repeated requests defendant failed to repay the loan. Further as is observed, defendant no.1 failed to file his appearance within the stipulated period and the application for leave to defend of defendant no.2 has already been declined. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in his favour in terms of order 37 CPC. Further defdt no.3 was exparte who had given the employers undertaking is deemed to have admit the contents of plaint. Therefore, defdt no. 3 directed to deduct the salary of defdt no.1 as per rules & remit the same to the plaintiff bank. In case the plaintiff is not able to recover the entire amount, the defdt no.2 , who stood as a guarantor shall be equally and severally liable to repay the aforesaid amount as per law.
10. Relief: In view of aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,01,096/ along with simple interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 5/6 realization. Further defdt no.3 is directed to deduct the decree from the salary of defdt no.1 & remit the same to the plaintiff bank. In case the plaintiff is not able to recover the entire amount, the defdt no.2 , who stood as a guarantor shall be equally and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount as per law. Decree Sheet be prepared, accordingly. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Court: (SHEFALI SHARMA)
Today i.e on 25.01.2014 CIVIL JUDGE NORTH
ROHINI/25.01.2014
Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 6/6
Suit No. 140/13
15.01.2014
Present; None.
Vide separate judgment, he suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,01,096/ along with simple interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization. Further defdt no.3 is directed to deduct the decree from the salary of defdt no.1 & remit the same to the plaintiff bank. In case the plaintiff is not able to recover the entire amount, the defdt no.2 , who stood as a guarantor shall be equally and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount as per law. DecreeSheet be prepared, accordingly. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Court: (SHEFALI SHARMA)
Today i.e on 25.01.2014 CIVIL JUDGE NORTH
ROHINI/25.01.2014
Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 7/6
Suit no. 421/13
07.09.2013
At 4.00 p.m.
Present: None
Vide separate order, an application for leave to defend moved on behalf of defdt no.2 is dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,07313/ along with simple interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization. DecreeSheet be prepared, accordingly. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
(SHEFALI SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE NORTH
ROHINI/07.09.2013
Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 8/6