Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Ltd vs Tulsi Plastic Sign And Anr on 3 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL
SCJ-CUM-RC(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ NO.2467/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Its Authorized Representative
Having Its Registered Office At:
Landmark Race Course Circle,
Vadodara-390007
Having Its Branch Office at:
Shal Tower, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. Tulsi Plastic Sign
R/o- D-/104 Mansa Ram Park
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
2. Kanjaiya Yadav (Prop.)
S/o- Sh. Bajanath Yadav,
M/s. Tulsi Plasic Sign.
R/o- D-/104 Mansa Ram Park
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059 ........... Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.10.2022
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 02.04.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 03.04.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.2,55,867/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 1 of 7
BRIEF FACTS
1. Plaintiff i.e. ICICI Bank Limited is a Banking Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Land Mark Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 and inter alia branch office at Shal Towers, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005. The operations of the plaintiff bank are subject to the guidelines promulgated by the Reserve Bank of India. The bank is inter alia engaged in the business of providing overdraft facilities apart from other portfolios.
2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff bank through its AR Sh. Balram Kumar, who was duly authorized by the plaintiff bank vide a Power of Attorney in his favour and is fully conversant with the facts of the case. He is duly authorized, empowered and competent to sign, verify and institute and pursue the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
3. That the defendant No.1 is the Proprietary Firm and Defendant no.1 is the proprietor of the defendant no.1.
4. That the defendants approached and requested the plaintiff bank for granting them the Over Draft Facility to run their business. The plaintiff bank considered the request of the defendants and granted the Credit Authorisation Memo (CAM) dated 04.06.2007 to the defendants. Subsequently, the Master Facility Agreement alongwith other facility related documents CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 2 of 7 were duly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank, setting out inter alia the terms and conditions of the said facility granted by the plaintiff bank to the defendants.
5. That in terms of the aforesaid Credit Authorisation Memo and the Facility Agreement, the plaintiff granted the Over Draft Facility of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants in Current Account No. 630105004178 for the period of 12 months, which was extended from time to time at the request of the defendants. The aforesaid facility granted by the plaintiff bank is revolving in nature and the amount withdrawn needs to be revolved once within 90 days. The defendant is liable to deposit agreed monthly interest on the Facility and the amount shown as outstanding from time to time at the foot of the relevant account on the 30th day of each calender month of the year. The said payment was to be made at the rate of interest which was 16.75% per annum above the ICICI Benchmark Advance Rate and the Cash Credit Risk Premium.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that after availing the Over Draft Facility up to the maximum limit of Rs.2,00,000/- for his business, the defendants failed to reach the milestones fixed by the plaintiff and failed to adhere to the financial discipline and acted contrary to the terms and conditions governing the Over Draft Facility and the transaction documents. Despite repeated reminders, requests, demands and several opportunities granted by the plaintiff, the defendants have been constantly defaulting in repayment of the contractual dues/charges and interest and have also failed to regularize their account and also CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 3 of 7 failed to make payment of the outstanding amount due and payable by the defendant.
7. That as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank, an amount of Rs.2,55,867/- is found due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank as on 03.09.2022.
8. That despite repeated request when the defendant failed to repay the contractual dues/charges/interest towards the Overdraft Facility, a loan recall notice dated 11.08.2021 was issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to make the payment of the contractual dues/charges/interest of Rs.2,08,226/- within 7 days. However, despite the issuance and due service of the notice, the defendants did not repay the outstanding amount. Hence, the present suit.
9. Upon the institution of the suit, summons of the suit for the appearance and settlement of the issues were also issued to the defendants and which were also duly served upon them through publication in newspaper 'Veer Arjun' dated 05.05.2023 However, despite service, the defendants did not attend the Court and failed to file any written statement. Consequently, vide order dated 09.08.2023 they were proceeded as ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for ex-parte plaintiff's evidence.
10. It it pertinent to mention here that in view of the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff titled as Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Vs. Vikram Khosla, CS (Comm) 618/2019 and C.M. No.8431/2020, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, ex-
CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 4 of 7parte PE was ordered to be dispensed with.
11. The contextually relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is noted that the defendant has not cared to appear before this Court and was proceeded ex-
parte. The law with regard to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is clear, which stipulates that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within time permitted or fixed by the Court as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgment or make such orders in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of the same, the decree sheet shall be dran up. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC, I proceed to decide the present suit. Further, I am in agreement with the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court as relied upon by the plaintiff in paragraph 8 on the issue that in ex-parte matters no purpose would be served if evidence is directed to be led. There being no written statement filed, the averments in the plaint being unrebutted, the same are deemed to be correct.
12. The court has already heard the ex-parte final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The entire record is also perused.
CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 5 of 713. From the documents placed on record, the plaintiff has shown a liability of Rs.2,55,867/- of the defendant.
14. As already noted above, the defendant has failed to oppose the suit of the plaintiff by filing his defence as no written statement was filed by the defendant despite sufficient opportunity. Further, the defendant has also remained absent without any justified reason and as such has chosen not to rebut the averments made in the plaint.
15. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the court to not to rely upon the un-rebutted and un-controverted averments made in the plaint.
16. In view of the abovesaid material available on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is held entitled to the recovery of Rs.2,55,867/- towards the unpaid amount for the usage of Overdraft Facility.
17. The plaintiff has further prayed for pendente lite and future interest interest @ 24% per annum. However, the said rate of interest is exorbitant and the Court is not inclined to grant interest at such a higher rate. Considering the present facts and circumstances, the court deem it appropriate to grant the interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the decreetal amount.
18. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 6 of 7 Rs.2,55,867/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the decreetal amount. The plaintiff is also held entitled to cost of the suit.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Copy of judgment be given dasti on request.
Announced in the open Court (Harjeet Singh Jaspal) on this 03rd Day of April, 2024 SCJ-cum-RC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ NO. 2467/22 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Tulsi Plastic Sign & Anr. Page 7 of 7