Delhi District Court
In The Matter Of Karnataka Bank vs . Sumit on 26 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA
CIVIL JUDGE06, NORTH, THC, DELHI
In the matter of KARNATAKA BANK Vs. SUMIT
AGGARWAL
Suit No. 1181/11
Unique ID No. 02401C0194052009
The Karnataka Bank Limited,
6,Veer Nagar, Jain Colony,
G. T. Karnal Road,
Delhi110007 ...... PLAINTIFF
Vs.
Sh. Sumit Aggarwal,
Proprietor
M/s Sumit Marketing,
90, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony,
Delhi110007 ...... DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE CASE : 11.05.2009
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR ORDER: 21.02.2013
DATE OF ORDER : 26.02.2013
JUDGMENT:
Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 1 of 7 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,08,485/ (RUPEES ONE LAC EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE ONLY)
1. The present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff bank with a prayer for decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 1,08,485/ along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 19% per annum, from the date of filing the present suit, till its realization in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
2. The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff bank i.e. The Karnataka Bank Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, is carrying the banking business and is represented by its Branch Manager, Sh. Raghavendra C. L., who is constituted attorney and has been duly authorized to file the present suit, documents or any affidavit etc. and defend all legal proceedings. That the defendant vide his letter dt. 04.04.2007 had requested the plaintiff for grant of TOD (Temporary Over Draft) facility of Rs. 95,000/ for his working capital requirement against Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 2 of 7 his current A/c no. 85 and undertaken to regularize the said account within 31.07.2007. That the defendant had executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 04.04.2007 in favour of the plaintiff although, as per the said request of the defendant, the defendant had granted a TOD of Rs. 95,000/ on 04.04.2007, but the defendant had actually availed TOD of Rs. 91,278/ upto 10.04.2007. That the Demand Promissory Note dated 04.04.2007 provides that the said defendant is liable for payment of the said TOD facility with interest. That the said TOD of Rs. 91,278/ became overdue since 01.08.2007. The interest applicable on the said TOD is 19% per annum compunded monthly which is linked to the PLR (Prime Lending Rate) within the guidelines of RBI [which is at present PLR (14%) + 5%]. That the defendant has failed to repay the outstanding dues against the aforesaid TOD facility despite repeated requests and communications made by the plaintiff vide letter dated 27.11.2007 and 07.12.2007 respectively. That a liability confirmation Letter dated 17.08.2007 was given by the defendant to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had issued a legal notice dt. 13.06.2008 calling upon the defendant to make payment to the plaintiff for the said outstanding amount. That the present Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 3 of 7 balance outstanding against the said TOD facility of Rs. 91,278/ as on 30.04.2009 is Rs. 1,08,485/ together with interest @ 19% per annum from 01.05.2009. That rate of interest applicable is PLR + 5%, the present rate is 19% per annum since the present rate is 14%.
4. Summons were issued to defendant who appeared in person and later on his counsel also appeared and stated that he is ready to make the payment. However, there was no settlement and the matter was fixed for filing of WS which was not filed despite several opportunities and the opportunity was finally closed on 03.01.2012. Even attempts were made to settle the matter but the it could not be settled and the defendant did not show any receipt regarding any payments made to the plaintiff bank.
5. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff bank has filed its affidavitinevidence of Sh. Raghuvendra, Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank, who was examined as PW1, his affidavit being Ex PW1/A and who was well conversant with the facts of the case. The documents produced and relied on behalf of plaintiff bank are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to 1/15. The above said documents were filed in support of the claim raised against the defendant. Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 4 of 7
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused through the judicial file carefully. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that case of the plaintiff bank stands duly proved on judicial file by virtue of depositions made in the affidavit of Sh. Raghuvendra as PW1 which are duly supported by documentary evidence led by plaintiff. It is submitted that statement of account Ex PW 1/15 (colly) maintained by plaintiff bank shows a debit balance of Rs. 1,08,485/ as on 30.04.2009 which has been claimed in the present suit. The plaintiff has claimed the said amount on the date of the filing of the suit for which amount the plaintiff is entitled to a decree along with interest @ 19% till realization and also cost.
7. On appreciation of evidence on record in the light of contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, it is observed that plaintiff bank had sanctioned a TOD(Temporary Overdraft) facility of Rs. 95,000/ to the defendant. The plaintiff bank has proved on judicial file general power of attorney as Ex. PW 1/1, request letter Ex PW 1/3, take delivery letter Ex PW 1/4, letter dt. 27.11.2007 Ex PW 1/7, registry receipt Ex PW 1/6, postcard Ex PW 1/7, letter dt. 12.07.2007 Ex PW 1/8, postal card Ex PW 1/9, Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 5 of 7 liability confirmation letter Ex PW 1/10, legal notice Ex PW 1/11, speed Post receipt Ex PW 1/12, UPC EX PW 1/13, postal card Ex PW 1/14, statement of account Ex PW 1/15. The plaintiff bank has claimed the outstanding amount of Rs 1,08,485/ on the basis of accounts duly maintained and shown in the statement of account Ex. PW 1/15. It is also observed that the PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the defendant but nothing has come out of the said crossexamination which could show that the defendant had not availed of the said TOD account and had not utilized the amount taken against the same or is not liable to pay the outstanding in the said TOD account. Thus, the plaintiff bank has been able to prove the averments of the plaint on record and has, duly established the facts on record as per which the defendant is liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,08,485/ outstanding as on 30.04.2009 as is evident from the statement of account Ex. PW 1/15 (colly). The plaintiff has further claimed interest on the said amount @ Rs. 19% but the rate of interest as mentioned in the take delivery letter Ex PW 1/4 at page 2 is 17% and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 17% per annum on the said amount pendentelite and futute as also the said rate appears to be Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 6 of 7 reasonable since the transaction was commercial in nature.
8. This Court has also the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit. The present suit is also within limitation. This Court finds no reason to reject the case of plaintiff bank.
RELIEF On the basis of above findings, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,08,485/ in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with pendentelite interest and future interest @17% per annum till realization.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on (PRANJAL ANEJA) 26th day of February, 2013. CIVIL JUDGE06 (North) THC/Delhi/26.02.2013 Suit No. 1181 The Karnataka Bank Vs. Sh. Sumit Aggarwal Page No. 7 of 7