Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Having Its Branch Office At vs Nitin Trehan on 1 October, 2021

IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: DISTRICT JUDGE
   (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04,CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
                 COURTS, DELHI


CS (Comm.) No. 2311 OF 2019

ICICI BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
ICICI BANK TOWER,
LANDMARK, RACE COURSE CIRCLE
ALKAPURI,
VADODARA-390007, GUJARAT, INDIA.

AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT :
ICICI BANK TOWERS,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
MUMBAI-400 051

HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
2ND FLOOR, VIDEOCON TOWERS,
BLOCK E-1, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI-110055
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MS. NITU SRIVASTAVA               ....PLAINTIFF

                            Versus

NITIN TREHAN
S/O RAJINDER PAUL TREHAN
H.NO. 42/A 3RD FLOOR
MADAN PUR KHADAR,
G.D.GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL, SARITA VIHAR,
DELHI-110076

ALSO AT:
NITIN TREHAN

                        1
 S/O RAJINDER PAUL TREHAN
H.NO. 40, GALI NO.3, OPP
SHIV MANDIR KANEWALI
WEST MUMBAI-100067

ALSO AT:-
NITIN TREHAN
ONE MOBIKWIK SYSTEM PVT.LTD.
2ND FLOOR ORCHID CENTRE
SEC-5 GOLF COURSE ROAD
GURGAON-122002
                                             ....DEFENDANT


             Date of filing of the suit      : 28.09.2019
             Date of reserving judgment      : 27.09.2021
             Date of judgment                : 01.10.2021


                              Judgment

  1.

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,52,095/- (Rupees four lakh fifty two thousand ninety five only) along with interest. @ 24% per annum.

2. As disclosed in the plaint, the plaintiff bank is a body incorporated under the Companies act, 1956. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Bank"). The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for the grant of a loan under its Car Loan Scheme for purchase of vehicle. The plaintiff bank granted loan facility to the defendant for purchase of a vehicle namely "ALTO 2 K10/VXI AMT" having Registration No. DL3CCQ1361"

under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan and disbursed an amount of Rs.4,28,000/- on 11.12.2018 to the defendant under the loan account no.LADEL00038315730 as per request by the defendant.

3. The defendant agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs.4,28,000/- with interest @ 9.81% in 60 equated monthly installments.

4. From the loan amount a vehicle namely "ALTO K10/VXI AMT" having Registration No. DL3CCQ1361"

was purchased by the defendant which was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff bank in terms of agreement as a security towards the loan advanced by the plaintiff.

5. It is alleged that after receipt of the loan the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the repayment of the loan. Despite repeated reminders of the plaintiff bank to the defendant, defendant failed to honor his commitments. Finally, the plaintiff bank issued a legal demand cum loan recall notice dated 16.07.2019 on the defendant. Despite the issuance of the notice, the defendant neither cared to repay the loan nor replied to the said notice.

3

6. According to the plaintiff on the date of the filing of the suit there was an amount of Rs.4,52,095/- (Rupees four lakh fifty two thousand ninety five only) due against the defendant.

7. After filing of the suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant. Defendant was served through publication in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 31.05.201. Despite being served through publication, defendant neither appeared before the court nor filed written statement. The defendant were accordingly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.09.2021.

8. Plaintiff led ex-parte evidence. On behalf of the plaintiff bank PW-1 Mr. Rajneesh Kumar , AR of the plaintiff bank filed his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW- 1/1 to PW-1/9 and Mark X.

9. I have heard Ld. Counsel Mr. Vishal Rao for the plaintiff and gone through the entire record.

10. PW-1 was duly authorized and empowered to pursue the legal proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff bank against the defendant. The power of attorney in this regard is Ex.PW-1/1. The defendant approached the plaintiff for grant of vehicle loan 4 upon which the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.4,28,000/- for purchase of the vehicle namely "ALTO K10/VXI AMT"

having Registration No. DL3CCQ1361" and entered into a loan agreement under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the plaintiff bank. He agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 9.81% in 60 equated monthly installments. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan and disbursed an amount of Rs.4,28,000/- to the defendant as per the request of the defendant. The defendant as a security of the loan amount, hypothecated the vehicle in favour of the plaintiff.

11. The defendant executed the Preliminary credit facility application form Ex.PW-1/2, Credit Facility application form Ex.PW1/3, Deed of hypothecation Ex.PW-1/4 and irrevocable power of attorney Ex.PW-1/5. The loan was subject to the terms and conditions agreed by the defendant in accordance with the documents executed by them. The defendant loan number maintained by the plaintiff bank is LADEL00038315730. The defendant paid only 4 EMI and defaulted 4 EMIs as on 04.09.2019.

12. Ex.PW-1/6 is the office copy of legal notice dated 16.07.2019 and Mark X is the postal receipt. Ex.PW-1/7 is the certified copy of statement of accounts. Ex.PW-1/8 is the certificate under sec.2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act and 5 Ex.PW1/9 is the certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act.

13. The evidence led by the plaintiff has gone unrebutted, unchallenged and unrefuted. The testimony of PW-1 appears to be cogent, convincing and truthful. It is based upon the documentary evidence which were executed between the parties. There is no ground for me to disbelieve the same. This court is not inclined to grant prepayment charges amounting to Rs.23,950.83.

14. In view of the evidence adduced on record, I decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.4,28,145/- (Rupees lakh twenty eight thousand one hundred forty five only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. Suit accordingly stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.

(NISHA SAXENA) District Judge(Commercial Court)-04 Central/Delhi Announced through physical court hearing on 01.10.2021 rt 6