Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Ajit Parcha on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02, Central,
Tis Hazari, Delhi
DLCT010003372024
CS (COMM.) No. 123/2024
CNR No. DLCT010003372024
In the Matters of:
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
A body corporate constituted under
the State Bank of India Act, 1955
having its Central Office/Corporate Centre
at State Bank Bhawan,
Madam Cama, Mumbai-400024
and one of its local head offices at:
11, Sansad Marg ,
New Delhi-110001
and having branches amongst other one at:-
882, Ground Floor,
East Park Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005 ......Plaintiff
Versus
Ajit Parcha
s/o Sh. Jal Singh,
r/o H.No 2411-D, Gautam Puri,
Phase-1, Badarpur,
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 1 of 25 )
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19
12:38:11 +0530
Delhi-110044
Also at :-
Designation : Safai Karmchari
Employee No. 51200446
Deptt of Environment
Management Services,
SDMC-Central Zone,
DEMSCZ Ward-89,
Lajpat Nagar,
Delhi-110024 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 20.01.2024
Date of Argument : 15.12.2025
Date of Judgment :19.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs.8,40,505/-( Rs Eight Lakh Forty Thousand Five Hundred and Five only) filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiff' bank) against the defendant Ajit Parcha.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act,1955 (Act No. XXIII of 1955); present suit has been signed, Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Date:
verified and filed by Pramod Kumar Prabhakar, 2025.12.19 GOEL 12:38:16 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 2 of 25 ) Branch Manager; defendant had approached the East Park Road, New Delhi Branch of the plaintiff bank for seeking loan facility under the Personal Loan Xpress Credit Scheme (herein after referred to as " Credit Scheme"); defendant vide application dated 14.01.2020, applied for personal loan of 7,00,000/-
under said Credit scheme; plaintiff bank accepted the request of the defendant and a personal loan of Rs 7,00,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank under the terms and conditions contained in the arrangement letter, which was duly accepted and acknowledged by the defendant.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff bank that defendant executed various documents including arrangement letter dated 14.01.2020, personal loan agreement dated 14.01.2020, standing instructions dated 14.1.2020 for deducting monthly installment of Rs 15,572/- and consent clause letter dated 14.01.2020; plaintiff bank had released the sanctioned loan amount of Rs 7,00,000/- by giving credit to his saving account No. 38976718566; the loan was to be repaid in 60 equated RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR GOEL monthly installments of Rs 15,572/- each commencing KUMAR 2025.12.19 Date:
GOEL 12:38:21 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 3 of 25 ) from February,2020; the defendant agreed to pay interest @ 12.25% rising and falling therewith calculated at the daily balance of the loan amount depending on the change in MCLR; defendant further agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% over and above the applicable rate of interest.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff bank, that under its authority, as per mandate given by the defendant, the plaintiff hank had debited the saving bank account from time to time for the installments and lastly an amount of Rs 30,000/- was debited and credited to the loan account of the defendant on 26.08.2021; since, defendant failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and despite requests failed to regularize the account, therefore, as per banking norms and practice, the loan account was declared as NPA on 29.11.2021; as per the loan account of the defendant duly maintained by the plaintiff bank, as on 05.01.2024, an amount of Rs 8,40,505/- (including accrued interest of Rs 2,12,167/- and penal interest of 6,026/-) is due and outstanding against the defendant;
RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR GOEL a legal demand notice was sent to the defendant on KUMAR Date:
2025.12.19 GOEL 12:38:26 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 4 of 25 ) 28.11.2022 but despite service outstanding amount was not paid by the defendant. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff bank.
5. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a non-starter report dated 18.04.2023 in pre-institution mediation process.
6. On being served upon the summons of the suit, the defendant contested the present suit and filed the written statement.
7. In the written statement, the defendant has taken various objections. It is stated that the suit of the plaintiff bank is liable to be dismissed as same is without any territorial jurisdiction; present suit is filed without any cause of action; present suit is filed by the AR of the plaintiff without having any authorization letter; the suit has not been valued properly; plaintiff bank has concealed the material facts from the court.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR It is further stated that the plaint of the plaintiff is
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19
12:38:30
+0530
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 5 of 25 )
liable to be rejected under order 7 Rule 11 CPC .
8. According to the defendant, AR of the plaintiff bank came to the residence of the defendant and took defendant's signatures on blank papers and assured the defendant that the loan would be sanctioned; out of sanctioned loan of Rs 7,00,000/- an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- was directly taken by that employee of the plaintiff bank with assurance that the same will be deposited by him in the loan account. It is therefore prayed that the present suit may kindly be dismissed with costs.
9. Plaintiff bank has filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant and has denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
Settlement of issues and Fixing the Schedule for Second Case Management Hearing.
10. Vide order dated 25.10.2024, following issues were settled and Schedule for the Second Case Management Hearing was fixed. :
Digitally RAJESH signed by RAJESH 1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: entertain the present case? (OPD) GOEL 2025.12.19 12:38:36 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 6 of 25 )
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs 8,40,505/- as prayed for ? (OPP)
3. In case the issue no.2 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, as prayed for in the plaint thereof? If yes, rate thereof? (OPP).
4. Relief.
11. Records would indicate that the Schedule for the second case management hearing was modified vide order dated 07.12.2024 and then again on 27.01.2025.
Evidence led by the parties:
12. In support of its case, the plaintiff bank has examined its AR Pramod Kumar Prabhakar, Branch Manager as PW1. PW1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A and has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e copy of the Gazette notification dated 27.03.1987 Ex.PW1/1, Loan application dated 14.01.2020 Ex.PW1/2, Salary slip of the defendant pertaining to the month of November and December 2019 and January2020 Ex.PW1/3 (colly), Form 16 of the defendant Ex.PW1/4 (colly), Statement of Bank RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH account ExPW1/5, Identity Card of the defendant KUMAR GOEL KUMAR 2025.12.19 Date:
GOEL 12:38:43 +0530 issued by the MCD Ex.PW1/6, Aadhar Card of the SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 7 of 25 ) defendant alongwith e-KYC Ex.PW1/7(colly), Pan Card of the defendant Ex.PW1/8, Electricity bill for the month of November ExPW1/9, Original arrangement letter dated 14.01.2020 alongwith key facts statement ExPW1/10 (colly), Original personal loan agreement dated 14.01.2020 ExPW1/11, the standing instructions dated 14.01.2020 ExPW1/12, Consent clause letter dated 14.1.2020 ExPW1/13, legal notice dated 28.11.2022 ExPW1/14, Speed post receipt ExPW1/15 (colly), statement of account and statement of closure balance, respectively alongwith annexure A1 and annexure A2 ExPW1/16 and ExPW1/17, Certificate under Banker's Book of Evidence Act ExPW1/18 and Non Starter Report dated 08.04.2023 (18.4.2023) ExPW1/19.
13. PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
14. PW2 Smita Anjani Kumar also filed here evidence by way of affidavit ExPW2/A. She has also relied upon the documents ExPW1/2 to ExPW1/13 Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH already exhibited during the deposition of PW1 KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:38:49 +0530 Pramod Kumar Prabhakar.
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 8 of 25 )
15. PW2 was not cross examined by the defendant despite the opportunity being given.
16. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff's evidence came to be closed on 4.1.2025.
17. Pertinent to mention that on 5.3.2025, an application u/s 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the defendant making a request to grant an opportunity to cross examine PW2; the said application came to be allowed and PW2 was recalled for cross examination and on 5.7.2025, PW2 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
18. Defendant Ajit Parcha has examined himself as DW1. DW1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A and has deposed on the lines of stand taken in the written statement.
19. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff bank. No other witness was examined by the Digitally signed defendant.
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL
2025.12.19
12:38:54
+0530
Arguments made by the Ld. Counsels:
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 9 of 25 )
20. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank submitted that the defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for availing the loan facility at its East Park Road Branch, situated at Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court and all the documents were executed at the said branch itself, therefore, this court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case. On merits, it was stated that the defendant has admitted of having taken the loan from the plaintiff bank; the plaintiff's witnesses PW1 Pramod Kumar Prabhakar and PW2 Smita Anjani Kumar have proved all the documents and the plaintiff's bank has been able to establish its case.
21. Ld. Counsel for the defendant did not turn up for the arguments and has placed on record the written synopsis, whereby by referring the cross examination of the plaintiff witnesses, an attempt was made to show and prove that this court has no jurisdiction and the agent of the plaintiff bank had taken Rs 3,00,000/- out of the loan amount of Rs 7,00,000/- from the defendant.
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:38:59 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 10 of 25 )
22. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank and also the written synopsis filed on behalf of both the parties.
Discussion, Analysis and findings on the Issues Issue No.1 Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present case? (OPD)
23. One of the objections, as taken by the defendant, is that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case. Here it would be relevant to the refer to the relevant pleadings of both the parties which are as under:-
Para no.3 and 17 of the plaint:-
"3. That the Defendant had approached the East Park Road, New Delhi Branch of the plaintiff bank for granting loan facility under the Personal Loan Xpress Credit Scheme for his personal requirement. The addresses of the defendant available with the plaintiff bank in its records are mentioned in the title of the suit.
17. That the whole cause of action arose at East Park Road Branch, New Delhi, of the plaintiff bank; which falls in Police Station D.B Gupta Road, New Delhi which falls in Central Police District of New RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Delhi, and hence this Hon'ble Court at Tis Hazari KUMAR Date:
2025.12.19 Courts, new Delhi, has the jurisdiction to entertain GOEL 12:39:05 +0530 and try the present suit for the cause of action arose SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 11 of 25 ) in the said District of Police Station. Preliminary objection taken in the written statement:-
"1. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost as the present suit is filed without any territorial jurisdiction as the defendant does not reside in the local limits of this Hon'ble Court nor any cause of action arose in local limits of the Hon'ble Court."
Para 3 and 17 of parawise reply in the written statement:-
"3. That the contents of Para no.3 of the plaint are wrong and false, hence denied except his home address details. It is submitted here that the defendant never approach East Park Road, new Delhi Branch of the plaintiff to approach for personal loan to him. It is submitted here that the AR/MarketingAgent of the plaintiff's bank came to home of the defendant and took sign of defendant on blank papers, as the defendant is not much educated person.
17. That the contents of Para no.17 of the plaint are wrong and false, hence denied. It is submitted here no such documents was signed in the East Park Road Branch, New Delhi. It is submitted here that this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the defendant does not reside in the local limits of this Hon'ble Court nor any cause of action arose in local limits of this Hon'ble Court."
24. According to the plaintiff bank, the defendant had approached its branch situated at East Park Road, Digitally signed Karol Bagh for seeking loan facility which falls within RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:39:18 the jurisdiction of this court, whereas, according to the +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 12 of 25 ) defendant, since the defendant does not reside within the local limits of this court and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction. It is being claimed by the defendant that the defendant had never approached the plaintiff bank situated at East Park Road, Karol Bagh rather AR/marketing agent of the plaintiff bank had visited the defendant at his home.
25. In the background of the aforesaid rival contention, now the moot question for consideration is whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court or not?
26. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff bank is having its branch at East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and also that the said branch falls within the jurisdiction of this court. The contention of the defendant that he had not visited the aforesaid branch of the plaintiff bank and rather the AR/Marketing agent of the plaintiff bank had come to him at his residence situated at Badarpur, is without any RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR substance or evidence. On merits, the defendant has KUMAR GOEL not denied having taken the loan and execution of the Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19
12:39:22
+0530
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 13 of 25 )
certain documents. As far as the merits are concerned, the only contention is that the AR/marketing agent namely Sonu had taken an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- from the defendant and the defendant has utilized only Rs 4,00,000/-.
27. The claim of the plaintiff bank on merits is going to be discussed in detail while giving findings on issue no.2.For reference regarding the decision of the issue under consideration, I may refer to that at the time of availing the loan facilities, the defendant had executed and signed the loan application form ExPW1/2, original arrangement letter ExPW1/10 (colly), personal Loan Agreement ExPW1/11, standing instructions ExPW1/12 and Consent Clause letter ExPW1/13 (colly) all dated 14.01.2020. During his cross examination, DW1 Ajit Parcha has categorically admitted that the aforesaid documents i.e ExPW1/2, ExPW1/10 (colly), ExPW1/11, ExPW1/12 and ExPW1/13, bears his signatures.
28. PW1 Pramod Kumar Prabhakar, Branch Digitally Manager in the plaintiff bank in his evidence filed by signed by RAJESH RAJESH way of affidavit ExPW1/A, has reiterated the same KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:39:28 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 14 of 25 ) stand regarding the jurisdiction as taken in the plaint. Even during his examination PW1 replied that the defendant had approached for the loan at the East Park Road Branch of the plaintiff bank and the documentation for availing the loan were executed there. He further stated that the loan agreement was also executed at the branch and denied the suggestion that the defendant never visited the said branch of the plaintiff bank.
29. The testimony of PW1 has been supported and corroborated by PW2 Smita Anjani Kumar, Branch Manager in the plaintiff bank at Zever Branch , Noida. She has also filed her evidence by way of affidavit ExPW2/A and deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. She has denied that the documents regarding the loan had been handed over by the defendant to the agent namely Sonu. She specifically stated that the plaintiff bank does not have any agent in their branch including any Sonu; she categorically stated that the loan application ExPW1/2 was received by the plaintiff bank at the branch situated at East Park RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Road, Digitally signed Karol Bagh Delhi on 14.1.2020 and again KUMAR Date:
2025.12.19 GOEL 12:39:32 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 15 of 25 ) denied the suggestion that the agent of the plaintiff bank namely Sonu has visited the defendant.
30. A bare perusal of the aforesaid documents executed and signed by the defendant would make it crystal clear that there is no possibility of having signed the said documents as blank, as claimed by the defendant. Every document has the stamp of the plaintiff bank clearly indicating that the plaintiff bank is having its branch at East Park Road, Karol Bagh. All the documents are typed and address of the plaintiff bank has been shown as " State Bank of India, 20918, Karol Bagh, Delhi". In these circumstances, the cause of action has arisen at the place also where the branch of the plaintiff bank is situated. It is true that part of cause of action might have arisen at the place where the defendant is residing but that would not oust the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
Issue no.2 GOEL 2025.12.19 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an 12:39:38 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 16 of 25 ) amount of Rs 8,40,505/- as prayed for? (OPP)
31. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to go through the relevant provision of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding denial by the defendant in a suit filed before Commercial Court. Order 8 rule 3 A (1) CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes, says that denial shall be in the manner provided in sub rules 2,3, 4 and 5 of this rule. Sub rule 2 says that the defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of the plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits. Sub rule 3 says that where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version.
32. Further, as per the second proviso attached to Order 8 Sub rule 5 (i), if the allegations of the fact in the plaint, are not denied in the manner provided under Digitally RAJESH signed by RAJESH KUMAR rule 3 A CPC of this order, the same shall be taken to KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19
12:39:42
+0530
be admitted except as against a person under disability.
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 17 of 25 ) Meaning thereby, if the denial is not in terms of order 8 rule 3 A CPC and sub rules, as noted herein above, then it shall be taken as an admission on the part of the defendant.
33. Coming back to the present case at hand, it would be pertinent to refer to the pleadings of the parties. Para no.4 & 5 of the plaint are as under:-
"4... That the Defendant had approached the Plaintiff Bank for grant of a Personal Loan to the salaried person under Xpress Credit Scheme, for financial assistance of Rs 7,00,000/- on the prescribed applications form dated 14.1.2020 of the plaintiff bank, alongwith documents of his antecedents and worthiness; which request was accepted by the plaintiff bank and consequently a personal loan of Rs 7,00,000/-was sanctioned by the bank as per his requirement under the terms and conditions contained there in the Arrangement Letter and further been mentioned in the Key Fact Statement annexed therewith, which was accepted and acknowledged by the Defendant, and thereafter to avail the same the Defendant had executed, signed and delivered, the following documents for valuable Consideration in favour of the Plaintiff Bank; and the same are as under:-
1. Arrangement Letter dated 14.01.2020, along with Key fact statement with regard to terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned, which was duly accepted and acknowledged by the Defendant; and II. Personal Loan Agreement dated 14.01.2020 of Rs 7,00,000/- alongwith required Stamp Papers, and RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH III. Standing Instructions dated 14.01.2020 for KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2025.12.19 deducting monthly installment of 15,572/- from GOEL 12:39:48 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 18 of 25 ) saving account No. 38976718566 of the Defendant, commencing from February 2020, in the prescribed form of the Plaintiff Bank:
IV Consent Clause Letter dated 14.01.2020, authorizing the plaintiff bank to inform/disclose the name of the Defendant to Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited in case of default in repayment of the loan, in the required form of the plaintiff bank.
5. That the Plaintiff Bank had released the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- granted to the Defendant, as per the requirement of defendant by giving credit to him saving account No. 38976718566.
34. In the written statement the defendant has replied the said averments as under:-
4. That the contents of para no.4 of the plaint are matter of record hence need no reply.
5. That the contents of Para no.5 of the plaint are matter of record hence need no reply. It is submitted here that the AR/Marketing Agent of the plaintiff's bank came to home of the defendant and took sign on blank paper and assured him that he will passed loan to him and in which Rs.3,00,000/- were directly taken by that employee out of Rs,7,00,000/- with assurance that the same will be deposited by him in the loan account.
35. From the pleadings of the parties itself it stands established that the defendant had availed the facility of loan and executed the documents as referred to in Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:39:53 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 19 of 25 ) para no.4 of the plaint. Even otherwise, the plaintiff bank has been able to establish the same. PW1 Pramod Kumar Prabhakar in his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A deposed that defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for availing the personal loan facility under Credit Scheme on the prescribed application form ExPW1/2 and subsequently, the personal loan in the sum of Rs 7,00,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank and the defendant executed the arrangement letter ExPW1/10, personal Loan Agreement ExPW1/11, standing instruction ExPW1/12 and Consent Clause letter ExPW1/13 (colly) . PW1 has also proved the statement of account ExPW1/5.
36. PW2 Smita Anjani Kumar in her evidence filed by way of affidavit ExPW2/A has deposed on the same lines and has relied upon the documents as referred to by the PW1. Both PW1and PW2 were cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the defendant but nothing could be elicited to breach their testimonies. Rather, Digitally signed by RAJESH their cross examination would reveal that certain RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR irrelevant questions were put to the witness which GOEL Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19
12:39:57
+0530
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 20 of 25 )
were disallowed by the Court. The defendant has nowhere objected to having availed the facility of loan and execution of the documents. During his cross examination, DW1 has admitted that the application form ExPW1/2, arrangement letter ExPW1/10, personal Loan Agreement ExPW1/11, standing instruction ExPW1/12 and Consent Clause letter ExPW1/13 (colly) bear his signatures at various places at points 'A'. He also admitted that on the salary slip ExPW1/3 (colly), Form-16 ExPW1/4 (colly), office identity card ExPW1/6 and Aadhar Card ExPW1/7 (colly), PAN No. ExPW1/8 and electricity bill of his residence ExPW1/9.
37. Although, PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant but nothing could be elecited even during their cross examination for demolishing the claim of the plaintiff bank and the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses have gone unbreached. Moreover, during his cross examination, Digitally as noted earlier, the defendant ( DW1) has admitted of signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR having executed the loan documents on which the KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19
12:40:01
+0530
present claim of the plaintiff bank is based upon.
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 21 of 25 )
38. Coming to the contention of the defendant that one person namely Sonu who was the agent of the plaintiff bank had taken the signatures of the defendant on certain blank papers and took an amount of Rs 3,00,000/-, the defendant has failed to prove the essential facts and evidence on record in this regard. The allegations are general and not specific. No further details of said Sonu have been furnished. It has not been explained by the defendant how all of a sudden and under what circumstances, the agent had visited him and under whose instructions, he made the alleged payment of Rs 3,00,000/- to said agent. Further, there is nothing on record indicating that the defendant ever informed the plaintiff bank verbally or in writing that one agent of the plaintiff bank had come to him who had taken an amount of Rs 3,00,000/-. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed in the year 2020 and the present case was instituted in the year 2024. In between the defendant had enough time at least to find out the antecedents of said Sonu or at least to inform the plaintiff bank about the same.
Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date: 2025.12.19 GOEL 12:40:06 +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 22 of 25 )
39. Further, as per the statement of account ExPW1/16, which is duly supported by the certificate under Banker's Book of Evidence Act ExPW1/18, the payment made by the defendant indicating the last payment made on 26.8.2021 have duly been incorporated. It is highly unbelievable that the defendant who has taken the loan from the plaintiff bank and is making the part payment would not intimate the plaintiff bank about the fact that one agent of the plaintiff bank had taken Rs 3,00,000/- from him. It is nowhere the case of the defendant that the defendant has already returned back the loan amount to the plaintiff bank. As per the statement of closure balance ExPW1/17, an amount of Rs 8,40,505.20 is due and outstanding against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff bank has been able to establish on record that an amount of Rs 8,40,505/- was due and outstanding against the defendant as on 05.01.2024. Thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover an amount of Rs 8,40,505/- ( Rs Eight Lakh Forty Thousand Five Hundred and Five only). Accordingly, Issue No.2 is decided in favour Digitally signed RAJESH of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
2025.12.19
GOEL 12:40:11
+0530
SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 23 of 25 )
Issue No.3
In case the issue no.2 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest? If yes, rate thereoff ? (OPP).
40. The plaintiff bank has claimed the pendente-lite and future interest @ 12.25 % p.a with monthly interest and 2% simple overdue penal interest. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met by awarding pendente-lite and future interest @ 8% per annum, so ordered accordingly. Issue no.3 is disposed off accordingly.
Issue No.4 Relief
41. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff bank has been able to prove its case against the defendant. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover Rs 8,40,505/- (Rs Eight Lakh Forty Thousand Five Hundred and Five only) from the defendant..Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL (ii) Plaintiff bank is also awarded pendente-lite and future KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:40:15 interest @ 8 % p.a. +0530 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 24 of 25 )
(ii) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff bank.
42. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
43. File be consigned to Record Room, after due Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH compliance. KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.12.19 12:40:20 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 19.12.2025 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 19.12.2025 SBI Vs Ajit Parcha Date of judgment 19.12.2025 (page 25 of 25 )