Delhi District Court
The Federal Bank Limited vs Sh. Ravinder Tiku on 11 March, 2011
:1:
IN THE COURT OF SH SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 10: DELHI
Suit No. 131/10
The Federal Bank Limited
A Banking company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 with its
Registered Office at Aluva,
Kerala and having a branch
amongst others at
Karol Bagh Branch,
New Delhi110005 ......Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Ravinder Tiku Son of Sh. Jankinath Tikko 225C, Shipra Sun City, near Shipra Mall, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
Also at: C/o Reliance Infocomm Ltd.,
12th Floor, Vijaya Building,
Barakhamba road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi. .....Borrower
2. Smt. Archana Tikku
wife of Sh. Ravinder Tiku
225C, Shipra Sun City,
near Shipra Mall, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad. .....Co Borrower
......Defendants
Plaint presented on 02.11.2010
Contd..
:2:
J U D G M E N T.
1. Plaintiff a banking company registered under the Companies Act has filed this recovery suit through its Attorney Sh. G.N. Sharma stating that defendant no. 1 as borrower and defendant no. 2 as coborrower were granted personal loan of Rs. 6,50,000/ against execution of demand promissory note, agreement and security delivery letter on 05.11.2007. The loan was repayable in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs. 18,090/ each commencing from the date of loan with interest @ 15% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendants have also agreed to pay penal interest on committing default in payment terms. After availing the loan defendants paid certain installments but failed thereafter. They kept on assuring the plaintiff that the loan along with interest will be cleared but did not actually adhere to the commitment. Legal notice dated 11.10.2010 on behalf of plaintiff also remained uncomplied therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,07,694/ with interest @ 16% p.a. and penal interest.
2. Summons for settlement of issues were sent to the defendants. The summon sent at the place of employment of defendant no.1 in ordinary manner returned with a certificate of employer that he is no more in their employment after 30.11.2007. Both the defendants however were duly served at their outstation address of Ghaziabad through registered post sometime in the third week of November, 2010. They did not turn up nor filed their defence within statutory period U/o 8 Rule 1 CPC, hence were Contd..
:3:proceeded exparte on 21.12.2010.
3. Plaintiff has examined Ms. Pratibha Singh, Manager (Administration) by way of exparte evidence, as PW1. Besides narrating the facts she has proved her documents of authorization as Ex. PW1/1, copy of attorney in favour of Sh. G.N. Sharma as Ex. PW1/1A, loan agreement Ex. PW1/2, promissory note Ex. PW1/3, Security deliver letter Ex. PW1/4, legal notice along with postal receipts Ex. PW1/5 and certified copy of statement of account Ex. PW1/6. She has closed the opportunity today.
4. I have heard Sh. Pramod Sharma, advocate, ld. Counsel for the defendant and carefully perused the record. For a loan granted on 05.11.2007, filing of this suit on 01.11.2010 is within the period of limitation. Sh. Gopindranath Sharma was the Chief Manager of the plaintiff at the time of filing of this suit. As Principal Officer of the bank, he was competent to sign and verify the pleadings on its behalf under Order 29 Rule 1 CPC. He was specifically authorized interalia to institute legal proceedings in Court of law vide power of attorney Ex. PW1/1A. The suit therefore, has been filed by a competent person.
5. PW1 duly proved the loan documents Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4 on being produced from appropriate custody. The same bear signatures of defendants, who are husband and wife. The actual disbursal of loan is reflected in statement Ex. PW1/6 which has been duly certified The Banker's Books Evidence Act as well as under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act hence, generate trust. It reflects dithering conduct of Contd..
:4:defendants in paying loan installments which led to accumulation of Rs. 7,07,694/ as on 30.10.2010. The defendants are liable to repay the said amount to plaintiff particularly when the agreed period of repayment by installments is over by more than 1 year. Now, the detailed terms of payment of interest and penal interest are contained in agreement PW1/2 which has been succinctly executed by defendants. There is no apparent flaw in the case of plaintiff which therefore succeeds. Exparte decree in the sum of Rs. 7,07,694/ with interest @ 15 % p.a. with monthly rests and penal interest of 2 % p.m. simple and half costs is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants. Decree Sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 11th March, 20110.
(Sunil K. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi.
Contd..
:5:Suit No. 131/10 11.03.2011 Present: Ms. Pratiba Singh, Manager(Admn.) of plaintiff with Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Defendants are exparte.
Ms. Singh has filed her affidavit. The same has been formerly tendered and opportunity for exparte evidence is closed. Arguments heard. Vide separate judgment directly dictated on computer, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sunil Kr. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi: 11.03.2011 Contd..