Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar on 31 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010080572019
CS (COMM.) No. 970/2019
CNR No. DLCT010080572019
ICICI BANK LIMITED
Having its registered office
at ICICI Bank Tower,
Near Chakli Circle
Old Padra Road, Vadodara
Gujarat- 390 007
Having its Branch Office at
E Block, Videocon Tower,
Jhandewalan Extn.
New Delhi 110 055
Through Sh. Rajneesh Kumar ......Plaintiff
Versus
Ravi Kumar
s/o Sh. Puran Chand
r/o 135/7,
DCM Railway Colony,
Kishan Gang,
Delhi 110006 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 01.07.2019
Date of Argument : 31.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2024
ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 1 of 13 )
JUDGMENT (Exparte)
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,24,805.55/- (Rs Three Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Five and Fifty five paise only) filed by the ICICI Bank Limited (herein after referred to as "Plaintiff Bank") against the defendant Ravi Kumar.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that plaintiff bank is a body incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,1913 having one of its branch at E Block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110055; Mr. Pankaj Jain is duly authorised, empowered and competent to sign, verify and institute the present suit.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff bank that in the month of June,2018,defendant approached the plaintiff bank and requested for grant of a personal loan of Rs 3,00,000/- under the Personal Loan ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 2 of 13 ) Scheme and executed Credit Facility Application form; defendant agreed to repay the said loan in 48 equated monthly installments with interest; plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan amount and after deducting Rs 6,195/- towards processing fee & Other charges, disbursed Rs 2,93,805/- to the defendant in his account No. 015401526014 maintained with the plaintiff bank; defendant agreed to repay the said loan amount alongwith interest @15.49% in 48 equated monthly installment of Rs 8414/-.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff bank that defendant loan number maintained by the plaintiff bank is LPDEL00037431742; defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline and defaulted in repayment of the monthly installments; plaintiff bank recalled the loan facility vide loan recall notice dated 11.02.2019; as per the account maintained by the plaintiff bank as on 16.03.2019, an amount of Rs 3,24,805.55/- is due and outstanding against the defendant but defendant failed to make the payment. Hence, the present suit was filed.
ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 3 of 13 )
5. Here it is pertinent to mention that originally the plaintiff had filed the present suit under order XXXVII CPC,1908. At the initial stage itself vide order dated 28.09.2019, Ld. Predecessor of this Court observed that the present suit cannot be proceeded under order XXXVII of CPC and the present suit was directed to be treated as an ordinary suit for recovery of money.
6. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant at the given address but the defendant could not be served. Thereafter, on an application moved under order V Rule 20 CPC, vide order dated 26.04.2022, defendant was directed to be served through substitute mode of service by way of publication in newspaper " The Statesman".
7. Record would indicate that on 25.07.2022, Ld. Predecessor of this court observed that the defendant has been served through publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 14.05.2022. On 06.10.2022 nobody on behalf of the defendant appeared despite several calls, therefore, defendant was proceeded ex-parte by the Ld. Predecessor of ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 4 of 13 ) this court.
8. Thereafter, on 15.03.2023, an application under section 151 CrPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank seeking substitution of Authorized Representative and the said application was disposed of vide order of even date by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and Sh. Jitender Mehndiratta was substituted as new AR of plaintiff bank.
9. The plaintiff bank, in support of its case, has examined Jitender Mehndiratta, AR as PW1 and one Ravi Sharma, Zonal Relationship Manager as PW2. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon / proved the following documents:-
S.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Power of attorney dated ExPW1/B 09.03.2021
2. Credit Facility application ExPW1/C
3. Copy of loan recall notice dated ExPW1/D 11.02.2019
4. Statement of account ExPW1/E
5. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian ExPW1/F Evidence Act ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 5 of 13 )
6. Certificate under section 2 A of ExPW1/G the Bankers Book of Evidence Act
7. Postal receipt Mark X.
10. Record would indicate that vide order dated 15.03.2023 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the exparte evidence of the plaintiff bank was closed and case was adjourned for exparte final argument.
11. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.04.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this court raised certain queries qua the jurisdiction of this court and maintainability of the present suit and following issues were framed:
i. Whether this court can try present suit under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act? (OPP) ii. If the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount, as claimed in the plaint, and interest, if any? (OPP) iii. Relief.
12. Plaintiff bank led the additional exparte evidence and has examined, one Dr. Ravi Sharma as PW2. PW2 Dr. Ravi Sharma, has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW2/1 and has also relied upon the documents ExPW1/B to ExPW1/G. ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 6 of 13 )
13. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank.
Limitation
14. Section 3 of the Limitation Act,1963 requires that suits or the proceedings instituted after the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed. It is a statutory restriction of the right of action to certain periods of time, after the occurring of the cause of action beyond which, except in certain specific cases, it will not be allowed. The court is under a bounded duty to consider whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. Thus, firstly I shall deal with the issue of limitation.
15. The plaintiff bank has filed the present suit for recovery of money, for which the limitation is three years from the date when the cause of action arises.
16. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the defendant applied for a personal loan vide credit facility application form dated 7.6.2018 ExPW1/C. The said ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 7 of 13 ) loan was duly disbursed and was to be repaid by the defendant in 48 equated monthly installments. That being so, the cause of action arose on 07.06.2018 and also on all subsequent dates till the last installment was to be paid by the defendant i.e on or before 7.6.2022. The present suit has been filed on 01.07.2019 which is within the period of limitation. The court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff bank has filed the present suit within the period of limitation as prescribed under the law.
Jurisdiction : Territorial as well as Pecuniary
17. Although, the defendant has already been proceeded exparte still it is the duty of the court to see whether this court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present dispute. This issue was raised by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court also vide order dated 12.04.2023.
18. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff bank that the plaintiff bank has the Branch Office at Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi. Further, the defendant is resident of Kishan Ganj, Delhi which ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 8 of 13 ) falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
19. PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Ravi Kumar, have proved the Credit facility application form ExPW1/C submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank which bears the photograph and the signatures of the defendant. In the said application form the address of the defendant is of Kishan Ganj, Delhi, as pleaded in the plaint, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the offence.
20. Further, the Commercial Courts Act 2015 was amended on 03.05.2018 and by virtue of the amendment and by virtue of the notification, the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts Act shall not be less than Rs.3,00,000/-. In the present case, the suit amount is Rs 3,24,805.55/-( Rs Three Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred five and fifty five paise only) and this Court is having the pecuniary jurisdiction also to adjudicate the dispute.
ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 9 of 13 ) Entitlement Issue No.1 Whether this court can try present suit under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act? (OPP) Issue No.2 If the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount, as claimed in the plaint, and interest, if any? (OPP)
21. Since, both these issues are interconnected, therefore, the same are being taken together.
22. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank has filed the written submissions and has argued more or less on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and submitted that plaintiff bank is entitled to the decree, as prayed for as the testimonies of PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Dr. Ravi Sharma have gone unchallenged and unrebutted. He further submitted that the queries raised by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court have already been addressed and this court may consider only the principle amount and the interest on the pending installments, while passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff bank.
ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 10 of 13 )
23. The plaintiff bank has examined Jitender Mehndiratta AR of the Plaintiff bank as PW1 and Dr. Ravi Sharma, Zonal Relationship Manager, who have deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint and have proved the documents from ExPW1/B to ExPW1/G. As per the Credit facility application form ExPW1/C, the defendant had applied for a personal loan which was duly sanctioned by the plaintiff bank and as per the statement of account ExPW1/E, an amount of Rs 3,01,591/- ( Rs 2,84,077/- principle amount + Rs 17,514/- interest) is outstanding and due against the defendant.
24. The case of the plaintiff bank has gone unchallenged as defendant has chosen not to appear before the court. The testimony of PW1 Jitender Mehndiratta and PW2 Dr. Ravi Sharma have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Thus, the plaintiff bank has been able to establish on record that the defendant had availed a personal loan from the plaintiff bank and he was under legal obligation to pay an outstanding amount of Rs 3,01,591/-( Rs ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 11 of 13 ) Three Lakh One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety One only) on 16.03.2019, as per the case of the plaintiff bank. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant and suit of the plaintiff is maintainable. Hence issue no.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
Interest
25. As regards the interest, the plaintiff bank has claimed the same at the rate of 15.49% per annum. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that same is on higher side. Interest of justice would be met by awarding pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum.
Issue No.3. RELIEF
26. 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:-
ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 12 of 13 ) (i.) The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover Rs Rs 3,01,591/-( Rs Three Lakh One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety One only) from the defendant;
(ii.) The plaintiff bank is also awarded the pendentilie and future interest @ 8% per annum.
(iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff bank.
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
28. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2024.08.02 GOEL 11:01:18 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 31.07.2024 Announced in the Open Court today i.e:31.07.2024 ICICI Bank Limited vs Ravi Kumar Date of Judgment 31.07.2024 ( page no. 13 of 13 )