Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs Sh. Jai Prakash Bachchan on 20 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF
SH. PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 403/18
CNR No. DLST01-002889-2018
UNION BANK OF INDIA
(Erstwhile-CORPORATION BANK)
HEAD OFFICE AT:
MANGLA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD
MANGALORE, KARNATKA
HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT:
D-66, GROUND FLOOR,
CHHATTARUR ENCLAVE, 60 FEET ROAD,
NEW DELHI ..... PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. SH. JAI PRAKASH BACHCHAN
S/O SH. UMA SHANKAR SINHA
R/O B-29, 2ND FLOOR, GALI NO.4,
MANDAWALI, UNCHEPUR
DELHI-110092
ALSO AT:
SR.LAYOUT DESIGNER
POTION INFOSYSTEMS P. LTD.
B-43, SECTOR-65, NOIDA-201301, U.P
2. MS. SANGEETA SHRIVASTAVA
W/O SH. JAI PRAKASH BHACHCHAN
R/O B-29, 2nd FLOOR, GALI NO.4,
MANDAWALI, UNCHEPUR
DELHI-110092
3. M/S. BLISS INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.
REGD OFF AT:
153, 3rd FLOOR, SARAI JULENA,
CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 1 of 17
NEW DELHI-25
ALSO AT:
312-313, HEMKUNTH CHAMBERS,
89, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
EMAIL: [email protected] ..... DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution :25.04.2018
Reserved for judgment :05.08.2022
Date of pronouncement :20.08.2022
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 5,28,727/- (RUPEES FIVE
LAKHS TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN ONLY) ALONGWITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 5,28,727/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
2. Brief facts, according to the plaintiff bank, are that the plaintiff bank is registered under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 (Act 3 of 1980) having head office at Mangla Devi Temple Road, Mangalore, Karnataka, and one of its branch office at D-66, Ground Floor, Chhattarpur Enclave, 60 Feet Road, New Delhi. Initially, the suit was filed by M/s. Corporation Bank but during the course of proceedings the said bank was merged with the Union Bank of India vide Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2020 and the substitution of the name of CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 2 of 17 the plaintiff bank was allowed vide proceedings dated 16.03.2021.
3. It is submitted that the defendants no.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank for Housing Loan Facility to purchase an under construction flat bearing no. 301, Venus-3, Third Floor, measuring 550 sq. ft. at Saraswati Apartment Suites, situated at NH-58, Duhai (Raj Nagar), Ghaziabad, U.P, vide loan application form dated 15.01.2014 and the said request was considered by the plaintiff bank and it sanctioned an amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- vide CSI dated 28.01.2014. It is submitted that the defendants had agreed to repay the aforesaid loan amount alongwith floating rate of interest i.e. 10.25% per annum compounded monthly. It was also stipulated that in case of default in payment equated monthly installments on the due date penal interest @ 2 % per annum shall be charged over the normal rate of interest and recovered separately. According to the plaintiff, the defendants no.1 and 2 had agreed with terms and condition and acknowledged/signed the CSI dated 28.01.2014 and also executed the following documents dated 05.02.2014 respectively in favour of the applicant bank:
(a)Agreement for Term Loan;
(b)Letter of Undertaking and declaration from the borrower;
(c)Request for Disbursement Letter;
(d)Acknowledgment of Debt
(e) Memorandum of agreement w.r.t. under construction Flat Bearing No. 301, Venus-3, Third Floor, measuring 550 sq. ft. at Saraswati Aparment Suites situated at NH-58, Duhai CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 3 of 17 (Raj Nagar) Ghaziabad, U.P.
4. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the aforesaid credit facility was secured by mortgage of property i.e. under construction Flat bearing no. 301, Venus-3, Third Floor, measuring 550 sq. ft. at Saraswati Apartment Suites, situated at NH-58, Duhai (Raj Nagar) Ghaziabad, U.P and the defendants had also agreed to pay interest and other charges to the plaintiff on the principal amount of the said loan from time to time as per the terms and conditions set out in the said Loan Agreement. It is further stated that pursuant to the aforesaid documents executed and securities created, the plaintiff bank had disbursed the said sum to the defendants in terms of the aforesaid Loan Agreements. It is submitted that the defendants were required to make payment of the principal to the plaintiff, in accordance with the repayment schedule contained in the said loan agreement and also to pay interest and other charges to the plaintiff at the rate and in the manner as set out in the said loan agreement. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.3 had also agreed that it shall complete the development/construction of the flat within 24 months (+-) from the date of signing of the agreement or/ and within an extended period of 3 months thereof. It is further submitted that as per Tripartite Agreement, that in the event of the borrower and or builder/land owner failing to complete the sale transaction and registration thereof as per the agreement between builder/land owner & borrower, the builder/land CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 4 of 17 owner had undertaken and agreed to return all the moneys received by them in connection with the amount disbursed by the bank to the borrower for purchase of flat in question with interest to the Bank.
5. According to the plaintiff, in view of the various defaults committed by the defendants in payment of principal, interest and other money due under the said Loan Agreement and also in performance of the terms and conditions of the said loan agreements, like creation of encumbrance in the mortgage property in question, the plaintiff became entitled to recall the entire amounts of its said loans together with all interest and other money thereon under the said Loan Agreements as due and payable forthwith. It is further submitted that the defendants are quite irregular in payments of installments, hence the present facility was recalled. It is submitted that the true and certified extracts of the loan account of defendants duly certified under the Banker's Books Evidence Act and Information Technology Act shows the debit balance of Rs. 5,28,727/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) inclusive of interest debited up to 31.03.2018 excluding incidental charges. It is submitted that plaintiff bank is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest till payment @ 12.25% p.a. compounded with monthly rest on the sum of Rs. 5,28,727/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven only) as aforesaid. It is submitted that the CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 5 of 17 plaintiff issued a Demand notice dated 09.03.2018 to the defendants to pay the due amount but the defendants neither raised any objections nor liquidated the dues of the plaintiff bank and hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 5,28,727/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven only) alongwith interest.
6. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants and a written Statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant no 1 & 2. The defendant no.3 failed to appear despite substituted service and was proceeded ex- parte by my Ld. Predecessor on 06.05.2019. The defendants no.1 and 2 have contested the plaintiff's suit by taking preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable against the said defendants. It was contended that a complaint case bearing no. 1005 of 2017 has been filed by the said defendants alongwith other allottees before National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. It is further contended that the plaintiff itself is guilty of not adopting proper checks and balances and the plaintiff failed to obtain floor wise plan before disbursing the loan amount and failed to conduct site verifications and pre- sanctioned legal approval before granting the loan. It is further contended by the contesting defendants that they were only co-applicant of the loan availed by them in good faith that they will get the ownership and possession of the flat within the stipulated period and that the defendant no.3 CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 6 of 17 alone is liable for all the dues of the plaintiff. On merits, it has been contended by the defendants no.1 and 2 that they are victims of fraud and cheating done by defendant no.3 and that the plaintiff is trying to take advantage of its own wrong and that the officials of the plaintiff are hands in glove with the defendant no.3. It is further contended that the defendant no.1 and 2 have paid Rs. 7,26,962/- to the defendant no.3 out of the total costs of their flat which was Rs. 10,97,250/-. It is further submitted that as per Clause 20
(a) of the Agreement Letter issued by the defendant no.3, the developer was to complete the construction of the flat within 24 months and that the defendant no.3 had not started the construction of the flat in question despite repeated requests. It is further contended that the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the equitable mortgage and its officials did not visit the site of building and the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement of construction link payment plan. It is further contended that the defendant no.1 and 2 have not misutilized the loan amount and the real beneficiary was the defendant no.3 and the plaintiff has the right to recover its outstanding only from the defendant no.3 and hence the suit against the defendants no.1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 17.07.2019 :
1. Whether the present suit is not maintainable against defendants no.1 & 2? OPD1 &2 CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 7 of 17
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any money from the defendants? If so, what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover and from which of the defendants? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendants? If so, for which period, at what rate and on what amount? OPP
4. Relief.
8. On behalf of the plaintiff bank, Sh. Satish Kumar Dixit, AR/Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank has been examined as PW-1 and he tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents :
1) Ex.PW1/1: Power of Attorney (OSR)
2) Ex. PW1/2: Loan Application Form
3) Ex. PW1/3: Credit Sanction Intimation Letter dated 28.01.2014
4) Ex. PW1/4: Agreement for Term Loan dated 05.02.2014
5) Ex. PW1/5: Letter of Undertaking and Declaration dated 05.02.2014
6) Ex. PW1/6: Request for disbursement Letter dated 05.02.2014
7) Ex. PW1/7: Acknowledgment of Debt dated 26.12.2016
8) Ex. PW1/8: Memorandum of Agreement dated 05.02.2014
9) Mark A: copy of builder/buyer agreement dated 13.01.2014
10) Mark B: Copy of Permission to mortgage
11) Mark C: Copy of noting of lien
12) Mark D; Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 05.02.2014
13) Mark E: Copy of Legal notice dated 09.03.2018 alongwith CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 8 of 17 three postal receipts dated 09.03.2018
14) Ex. PW1/9: Statement of Account issued by the plaintiff Bank
9. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 21.02.2022.
10. Defendant no.1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex. DW1/1 (Colly) Letter dated 15.06.2016 and 21.12.2013.
2. Ex. DW1/2 (Colly) Receipts of payment
3. Ex. DW1/3 Promise Letter dated 30.04.2016
4. Ex. DW1/4 Photographs of construction at site
5. Ex. DW1/5 Police complaint dated 27.08.2017
11. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendants and defendant's evidence was closed on 02.03.2022 vide separate statement of defendant no.1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan.
12. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Kamal Kant Chhabra, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Manindra Dubey, Ld. counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2. I have considered the written submissions filed by ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 as well as evidence brought on record and my issue-wise finding are as under :-
1. Whether the present suit is not maintainable against defendants no.1 & 2? OPD1 &2
13. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that defendant no.1 and 2 had approached the plaintiff bank for Housing Loan Facility to purchase an under construction flat vide loan CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 9 of 17 application dated 15.01.2014, Ex. PW1/2 and a sum of Rs.
8,80,000/- was sanctioned in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. Perusal of Loan Agreement, Ex. PW1/4 shows that the defendant no.1 and 2 were required to make repayment to the plaintiff in accordance with the repayment schedule contained in the said loan agreement and they were required to pay interest and other charges to the plaintiff at the rate and in the manner as set out in the said Loan Agreement. Significantly, the defendant no.2, who is wife of the defendant no.1 has not even cared to sign on the Written Statement dated 29.06.2018 and there is not even any authorization by the defendant no.2 in favour of her husband/ defendant no.1 to contest the plaintiff's claim on her behalf. In effect there is no contest by the defendant no.2 by filing any Written Statement to the plaintiff's claim or authorizing the defendant no.1 to defend the matter on her behalf. The defendant no.1, DW1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan has also admitted during his deposition on 02.03.2022 that he had seen the brochure and the map of the project in the office of defendant no.3. The defendant no.1 has also admitted in his evidence that the payment was released to the defendant no.3 by the plaintiff bank on his instructions. Perusal of the Ex. PW1/2 shows that the same has been signed by the defendant no.1 and 2 on 15.01.2014. Even the Credit Sanction Intimation, Ex. PW1/3 is acknowledged by the said defendant. The Agreement for Term Loan (Housing) Ex. PW1/4 has also been signed by the defendant no.1 and 2 and the defendant no.1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan has deposed during his cross-examination on 02.03.2022 that he is a graduate in Arts CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 10 of 17 (Sociology) and employed with WNS Global Services, Gurgaon as a Lead Associate. He admits that he had taken loan from plaintiff bank to the tune of Rs. 9 Lakhs approximately. He also deposed initially that he had approached the plaintiff bank himself for advancement of the loan but again said that he had gone with one of the employees of the defendant no.3. Thus, the factum of loan being taken by the defendants no.1 and 2 from the plaintiff bank is not in dispute. The disbursal of the loan amount is also admitted the DW1. The said defendants cannot dispute their liability to pay in view of their categorical execution of the loan documents i.e. Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4. In view of the documents executed by the defendant no.1 and 2 and evidence brought on record, the said defendants have failed to discharge the burden cast on them that present suit is not maintainable against defendant no.1 & 2. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and 2.
Issue no. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any money from the defendants? If so, what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover and from which of the defendants? OPP
14. The onus to prove the issue no.2 was upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant no.1 and 2 had taken the loan from plaintiff bank and that the defendant no.1, DW1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan has also admitted in his deposition on 02.03.2022 that the payment was released to the defendant no.3 by the plaintiff bank on his instructions and the said defendants are raising false allegations against the officials CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 11 of 17 of the plaintiff to repudiate their liability to repay the loan amount.
15. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 and 2 has vehemently argued that plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery any amount due to negligence of its own officials and that the plaintiff bank was aware that the property in question were not approved by Ghaziabad authority and cheated the defendant no 1 and 2 and misappropriated the government money in collusion with defendant no.3. He has further argued that the Ex. PW1/7 i.e. Acknowledgment of the Debt was kept blank by the plaintiff bank and signatures of the defendant no.1 was forged and date of 26.12.2016 was put subsequently to extend the limitation to file the present case which is otherwise hit by limitation and time barred. However, perusal of the Written Statement dated 29.06.2018 filed by the defendant no.1 reveals that no such case of forgery or putting the date of 26.12.2016 subsequently on the Acknowledgment Letter has been mentioned/claimed in the entire Written Statement. The evidence of DW1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan regarding forgery of Ex. PW1/7 i.e. Acknowledgment of the Debt is beyond his pleadings and does not inspire any confidence. Had there been any truth in the defendants' said claim then there is no reason why the same was not mentioned in the Written Statement dated 29.06.2018. No justification is forthcoming regarding non signing/filing of the Written Statement by the defendant no.2. The ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 and 2 has also not been able to show/prove on record any authorization executed by the defendant no.2 who is CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 12 of 17 the wife of defendant no.1 to contest the plaintiff's case on her behalf. On behalf of defendant no.1 and 2, Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan, defendant no.1 alone has chosen to sign/file the Written Statement and enter into witness box as DW1 and he filed the documents Ex. DW1/2 (receipts of the payment), Ex. DW1/1 (Letters dated 15.06.2016 and 21.12.2013) which were rightly objected by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as the said documents were not filed at the time of filing the Written Statement nor any leave was obtained for filing the said documents on record by the defendants. Significantly, DW1 admits during his cross-examination on 02.03.2022 that Ex. DW1/1 (colly.) does not bear his signatures and even the payment receipts were not filed with the Written Statement as he is not conversant with legal procedure about filing the documents. He further deposed that he had supplied all the documents to his counsel whatever was asked from him. DW1 stated that he had not produced/brought the originals of the photographs Ex. DW1/2 (Colly.) which were in his possession and lying at his home. Thus, the documents filed by the defendant on 02.03.2022 during his evidence and objected to by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff have been filed without seeking any leave and without any justification or reasonable cause for non-filing of the same alongwith Written Statement or appropriate stage as required under the amended CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts. Accordingly, the documents Ex. DW1/1, Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/4 filed by the defendants are not worthy of any credence and the objection qua their exhibition CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 13 of 17 is upheld. The ld. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 has submitted that the defendant alongwith other allottees have filed a Writ Petition No. 7169 of 2019 titled 'Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. M/s. Bliss Infratech P. Ltd. & Ors.', but no orders qua the loan in question extended by the plaintiff bank has been shown or brought on record by the ld. Counsel for the defendants. The ld. counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the directions passed by Hon'ble Superior Courts in some other Writ Petitions and has argued that where the builders have cheated the innocent public then coercive steps started by the bank for recovery of the loan amount against the burrowers should be stayed. However, in the present case the defendants have failed to establish any fraud or deception by the plaintiff bank. The defendants no.1 and 2 are already availing the legal remedies available to them against the defendant no.3. The defendant no.1 Mr. Jai Prakash Bachchan during his cross-examination on 02.03.2022 has admitted that he is also a party in the complaint case No. 1005/2017 before NCDRC and that the plaintiff was not a party in the said complaint. The witness of the plaintiff namely PW1 Mr. Satish Kumar Dixit has proved the loan application form Ex. PW1/2, Credit Sanction Intimation Letter, Ex. PW1/3, Request Letter for disbursement Ex. PW1/6, Acknowledgement of Debit Ex. PW1/7 and the Memorandum of Agreement Ex. PW1/8. On a specific query by the ld. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 PW1 Mr. Satish Kumar Dixit had answered that they have maintained the visit report which include the progress of construction with loan documents at the time of disbursal of loan. He categorically CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 14 of 17 denied the suggestion made by the defendants' counsel that no report was prepared or collected as per Clause 3 of Ex. PW1/3. He also denied his suggestions that the construction was not monitored or that verification was not done before disbursal of the loan amount. The said witness has also denied about the allegations of collusion with the defendant no.3. The testimony of PW1 regarding taking of loan, the balance due and the account statement have not been challenged by the defendants. Admittedly, the defendant no.1 and 2 had taken the loan from the plaintiff bank. The defendant no.3 is also liable to pay the amount received from the bank released to it pursuant to the consent of defendant no. 1 and 2 for construction of flat. As the defendant no.1 and 2 have their independent rights/remedies against the defendant no.3 it cannot be held that they will not be liable to repay the loan, borrowed from the plaintiff bank. In view of the aforenoted discussion and evidence on record, this court finds that plaintiff has established its case and is entitled to recovery of Rs. 5,28,727/-. The plaintiff bank is the trustee of the public money deposited with it and is duty bound to take appropriate steps for recovery of the unpaid loans. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to repay the suit amount. All the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the suit amount to the plaintiff bank In view of the aforenoted discussion and evidence on record, this court finds that plaintiff has established its case and is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,28,727/- from the defendants on the preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 15 of 17 Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendants? If so, for which period, at what rate and on what amount? OPP
16. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that as per Credit sanction Intimation letter dated 28.01.2014 Ex.PW1/3, rate of interest is mentioned as 10.25%. In the entire WS filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 and 2, they have not disputed the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff bank towards the suit amount. As per Section 34 CPC, wherein and in so far as a decree is for payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of suit to the date of decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6% p.a at Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. As per proviso to Section 34 CPC, where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
17. In the present case, material on record including account statement with correct interest application indicate that the loan was granted to the defendant @ 10.25% per annum. Having CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 16 of 17 regard to the totality of aforenoted facts and the rate at which interest was charged, this Court is of the view that grant of 10.25% per annum pendente lite and future interest would serve the ends of restitutive justice. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 10.25% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till the realization of the said amount. Accordingly, the issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.4 Relief.
18. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, this court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,28,727/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 10.25% p.a. on the suit amount from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The plaintiff has also claimed the costs of the suit. Keeping in view Section 35 and 35A of CPC, the plaintiff is entitled for the costs of litigation. The advocate fee is assessed to be Rs.20,000/- only and same is hereby awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Cost of the suit i.e. court fee is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 20th Day of August 2022 Digitally signed by PREM PREM KUMAR (Prem Kumar Barthwal) KUMAR BARTHWAL BARTHWAL Date: District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01, 2022.08.20 17:11:33 +0530 South District/Saket Courts/New Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 17 of 17 CS DJ 403/18 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. JAI PRAKASH BACHCHAN AND ORS.
20.08.2022 Present : Sh. Sachin Miglani, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
None for defendants no.1 and 2.
Defendant no.3 is already ex-parte vide order dated 06.05.2019.
Vide separate order dictated, typed and announced in the open court today, the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 5,28,727/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) is decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 10.25% p.a. on the suit amount from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. Cost of the suit i.e. court fee is also awarded in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(Prem Kumar Barthwal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 (South)/Saket Courts, New Delhi/20.08.2022 CS (Comm) No. 403/18 Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Prakash Bachchan and Ors Page : 18 of 17