Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Bhupendra Sharma And Ors on 23 December, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-12
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS (COMM) NO. 2463/2019
State Bank of India
(Through its Chief Manager / Branch Manager)
SME Town Hall Branch
1st Floor, 1494-95, Town Hall,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
.......Plaintiff.
Vs.
1. Bhupendra Sharma
S/o Pt. Ram Sarup
R/o 1/2306 B, Ram Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi
2. Ravinder Nagpal
R/o E-5 East Chander Nagar,
New Delhi-110051.
..... Defendants.
Date of institution of suit : 14.10.2019
Date of final arguments : 22.12.2023
Date of final order : 23.12.2023.
Plaintiff is represented by Counsel Mr. Karn Kumar.
CS (COMM) No. 2463/19
State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 1/ 7
2
JUDGMENT
1. The instant suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank for recovery of Rs.10,27,317/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Seventeen) alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum against the defendant.
Pertinently, plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Order I Rule 10 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The same was allowed vide order dated 12.01.2022.
2. It is necessary to take note, albeit briefly, of the background facts as mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiff is a bank and has authorized Mr. Avinash Kumar Srivastava as its AR to file the suit. Defendant no.1 in the month of February 2006 approached plaintiff bank and applied for housing loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for purchasing of a flat bearing no. D-3/2, Ground floor at Sector -11, Rohini, Delhi. Defendant no.1 submitted the title documents of the said flat with plaintiff bank and as per banking rules, the documents were inquired into by the panel Advocate who filed his report on 10.03.2006. Based on said report, plaintiff sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to Defendant no.1 vide Arrangement letter and Agreement Letter dated 28.02.2006.
(b) Defendant no.1 initially made diverse payments in the loan account no. 61XXXXX180, however, he started defaulting in making CS (COMM) No. 2463/19 State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 2/ 7 3 repayments of loan installments. As a result loan account was declared NPA (Non Performing Assets) on 30.01.2017. Defendant no.1 also went untraceable. On fresh inquiry and opinion of another panel Advocate of bank and report dated 14.11.2017, it was found that title documents deposited by defendant no.1 with plaintiff bank were fake since the said property was actually owned by one Ms. Jyoti D/o Sh. Devanand and one Sh. Deepak S/o Sh. Devanand.
(c) From report dated 14.11.2017, it was clear that one Ms.Sunita Khera in order to make wrongful gains for herself, on one hand executed a Sale Deed in respect of property in favour of one Navin Kumar on 14.08.2007, while on other hand, appointed Mr. Gaurav Sharma as her attorney and said GPA was notarized. The said Mr. Gaurav Sharma knowing fully that he had no legal right on the said property intentionally executed sale deed in favour of Defendant no.1 on 22.05.2006.
(d) It was this sale deed with documents which was submitted by Defendant no.1 with Plaintiff Bank while availing loan in question. Defendant no.1 therefore, submitted fabricated documents with the Plaintiff Bank which spoke about larger conspiracy hatched by and between defendant no.1 and 2 and others who all acted in collusion and connivance with each other to defraud the plaintiff bank to cause wrongful gains for themselves and wrongful monetary loss to plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No. 2463/19State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 3/ 7 4
(e) Defendant no.2 in order to avail loan stood as guarantor for defendant no.1 and thus both defendants are jointly and severely liable to repay the outstanding amount. By using deceptive, forged and fraudulent means, defendants also committed offences under Section 406/420/424/464/467/468/471/12-B IPC. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with SHO PS Lahori Gate and complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC is pending before Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi regarding alleged frauds committed by Defendants.
(f) Plaintiff also issued notice under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act 2002 to the defendant no.1 but the same went unresponded. As per statement of account maintained by plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,56,300/- as on 30.06.2019 is pending and due upon Defendant no.1. Plaintiff also prays for interest @ 12 % on the said amount from the date of default of loan i.e. 01.02.2017 till its realization. The total sum i.e. Principal + interest as on 30.06.2019 is mentioned in tabulated form in para 22 of the plaint. Plaintiff bank issued a Legal notice dated 20.03.2019 and then corrigendum dated 23.03.2019 but did not get response.
3. Summons of the suit were served on the Defendants. The Defendants did not appear despite service and were proceeded ex-parte by order dated 05.06.2023.
CS (COMM) No. 2463/19State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 4/ 7 5
4. Plaintiff company in support of its case has examined Sh. Dharam Vir Singh, Chief Manager / AR as PW-1 who has proved documents i.e. Copy of Gazette Notification authorizing Branch Manager / Chief Manager of plaintiff bank marked as Mark A; TIR dated 10.03.2006 as Ex.PW1/1; Original Loan application executed by Defendant no.1 as Ex. PW1/2 ; Arrangement letter dated 28.02.2006 as Ex.PW1/3; Confirmation letter as Ex.PW1/4; Loan Agreement as Ex.PW1/5, letter dated 28.02.2006 as Ex.PW1/6; Guarantee as Ex. PW1/7, affidavit dated 09.11.2005 of the Borrower as Ex. PW1/8; letter of promise to pay as Ex. PW1/9; consent letter issued by guarantor as Ex.PW1/10; Office copies of notices/ communication dated 01.02.2017, 17.01.2017, 06.11.2015, 03.09.2015, 15.01.2014, 21.09.2010 and 31.01.2009 and 10.08.2007 (Mark B to I respectively); inquiry report of opinion expert dated 14.11.2017 as Ex.PW1/11; original title deed as Ex.PW1/12; complaints to SHO / DCP marked as Mark J, K & L ; the loan account statement of defendant no.1, interest calculation sheet, ID proof and bank passbook as Mark M to P respectively; (Mark Q is not available in court file therefore, the same is unmarked) office copy of Legal notice Mark R and postal receipts as Ex.PW1/13 and Ex. PW1/17 with 4 returned envelopes as Ex. PW1/18 to Ex.PW1/21; copy of order of Ld. MM in complaint case dated 19.10.2020 as Mark S and Mediation Non-starter report Ex.PW1/22.
5. I have heard submissions as addressed by Ld. Counsel for CS (COMM) No. 2463/19 State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 5/ 7 6 Plaintiff Bank and perused the entire material on record. Plaintiff has proved the circumstances and facts of loan availed by defendants. From documents it is discernible that after making initial few payments, defendants went untraceable. The reports of plaintiff bank would demonstrate that the Defendant no.1 purchased the property in question on forged documents from Mr. Gaurav Sharma (who was not the legal owner of the property). The Defendant no.1 submitted these fabricated documents with plaintiff to avail loan facility and thus defrauded the bank. Defendant have remained ex-parte. The case of plaintiff has gone un-challenged, un-rebutted and duly corroborated by documents. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the version of plaintiff qua the outstanding dues. Applying priori and posteriori reasoning, this Court is satisfied that plaintiff has been able to prove its case against the defendant.
6. Plaintiff has also claimed an interest @ 12 % p.a. on the principal amount pendent-lite and future. Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. V. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444 has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts. The said Judgment was relied upon in the R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018). Keeping in mind the mandate of the said proposition, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted CS (COMM) No. 2463/19 State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 6/ 7 7 pendente-lite simple rate of interest @ 8 % till its realization. The suit of Plaintiff stands decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant.
7. I hereby pass the following Order:-
(a). A decree for sum of Rs.10,56,300/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Three Hundred Only) is passed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants with interest 8 % from 14.10.2019 till its realization.
(b). The cost of the suit alongwith pleader's fee is also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 23.12.2023.
(Ravinder Bedi) District Judge (Commercial Court)-12 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts /Delhi CS (COMM) No. 2463/19 State Bank of India Vs. Bhupendra Sharma & Ors. Page no. 7/ 7