Bangalore District Court
Union Bank Of India vs M/S Fusion Jewellery & Tattoos on 11 March, 2022
KABC020176252019
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AT
BENGALURU.
Dated the 11th day of MARCH 2022
PRESENT
SMT.DIVYASHREE C.M, B.A.L, LL.M,
II Addl. Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU
S.C.No.1016 OF 2019
Plaintiff: Union Bank Of India,
(Erstwhile Corporation Bank)
Contonement Branch,
No.14/15, Kamaraj Road,
Cantonment, Bengaluru560 042.
Rep. By its Senior Manager/POA
Holder
Sri Shivasharanappa,
S/o Late Shankreppa Charma,
(By Sri Shivashankara A.,
Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant : M/s Fusion Jewellery & Tattoos
Shop B 24, Commercial Plaza,
Off. Commercial Street,
SCCH.13 2 22 SC.1016/2019
Bengaluru - 560 001.
Rep. By its Proprietor,
Sri Rajkumar R.,
(Exparte)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 15072019
Nature of the Suit : Recovery of money
Date of the commencement of
Recording of the evidence : 02032022
Date on which judgment
was pronounced : 11032022
Total Duration: Year/s Month Day/s
02 06 04
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffbank has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.26,825/ along with interest at the rate of 13.65% p.a.
2. It is stated in the plaint that, the Rajakumar R. the proprietor of the defendant has availed PMECC loan of Rs.50,000/ under the loan account bearing No.PMECC/01/160007 from the plaintiff bank for the purpose of Working Capital requirement of the firm. The SCCH.13 3 33 SC.1016/2019 defendants agreed with the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned and executed loan documents such as on demand promissory note, take delivery letter, Hypothecation deed and letter of undertaking in favour of the plaintiffbank. Defendant has failed to repay the said loan amount and it became chronic defaulter. In spite of several requests and demands of the plaintiff bank, the defendant has failed to repay and clear the loan amount as agreed regularly and made part payments towards the discharge of the loan amount. Hence, the plaintiff bank constrained to file this suit. As on date of the suit, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.26,825/. Therefore, it is prayed to decree the suit along with current and future interest.
3. In spite of service of summons, the defendant did not appear before the court and hence placed exparte. Plaintiff lead evidence and produced the documents.
SCCH.13 4 44 SC.1016/20194. Arguments heard.
5. By virtue of the above, the points that arise for my consideration are :
1. Whether the plaintiff bank proves that defendant had borrowed Rs.50,000/ to meet the working capital requirement by executing necessary documents?
2. Whether the plaintiffbank proves that defendants are due a sum of Rs.26,825/ as on the date of suit?
3. What order or decree ?
6. In order to prove the case, Assistant General Manager of the plaintiff bank got examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.8.
7. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of all the material on record, I have answered the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 : In the Affirmative POINT NO.2 : In the Affirmative POINT NO.3 : As per final order, for the following;SCCH.13 5 55 SC.1016/2019
REASONS
8. POINT NOs.1 & 2: Since the defendants are placed exparte, for better appreciation of the evidence lead by plaintiff, both the points are taken up together for discussion.
9. In order to prove that the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.26,825/, Assistant General Manager of the Plaintiff Bank was examined as PW.1 who has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, which is in terms with the plaint averments. The Loan application, credit sanction intimation, Demand promissory note, Take Delivery letter, Letter of undertaking, Hypothecation deed, Account statement along with certificate, copy of GPA were produced and marked as exhibits.
10. On perusal of these documents it appears that the plaintiff bank on 22072016 had sanctioned the loan of Rs.50,000/ to the defendant repayable with interest at the rate of 11.65% p.a., and the defendant defaulted SCCH.13 6 66 SC.1016/2019 in payment of monthly installment and it is due a sum of Rs.26,825/ as on the date of the suit. Under these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff bank has lead cogent evidence, both oral and documentary and has proved that the defendant has defaulted in paying the agreed installments and the defendants shall liable to pay the suit claim. Hence, I answer the point Nos. 1 & 2 in the Affirmative.
11. POINT No.3: In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to the point Nos. I & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The suit is decreed with costs.
Defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.26,825/ along with interest @ 13.65% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.SCCH.13 7 77 SC.1016/2019
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced in the Open court on this the 11th day of March 2022) (DIVYASHREE.C.M.) II ADDL.JUDGE & ACMM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 M.D. Bharatesha List of documents marked for plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 : Loan application form Ex.P.2 : Credit Sanction Intimation Ex.P.3 : Demand promissory note Ex.P.4 : Take Delivery Letter Ex.P.5 : Letter of Undertaking Ex.P.6 : Hypothecation deed Ex.P.7 : Account Statement along with certificate Ex.P.8 : Copy of GPA List of witnesses examined for defendant:
None SCCH.13 8 88 SC.1016/2019 List of documents marked for defendant:
Nil (DIVYASHREE.C.M.) II ADDL.JUDGE & ACMM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.