Delhi District Court
Bank Of Maharashtra vs Smt. Krishna on 3 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH: ADDLTIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT: TEES HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI.
CS No. 1447/11/11
Bank of Maharashtra
Having its Head Office at
Lok Mangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune
Branch Office
Paprola, Najafgarh Road
New Delhi-110043 ....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Smt. Krishna
W/o Shri Suresh Kumar
R/o House No.212, Village Bakkawala
New Delhi.
2. Shri Suresh Kumar
S/o Shri Daya Kishan
R/o H.No. 212, Village Bakkawala
New Delhi-110043
3. Shri Satish Kumar
S/o Shri Daya Kishan
R/o Village Bakkawala
New Delhi-110043 ...Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.08.2011
Judgment Reserved for : 03.08.2013
Judgment Passed on : 03.08.2013
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Bank has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,45,282/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Two only) alongwith interest and cost of the suit against the defendants.
2 It is, inter alia, stated in the plaint that plaintiff is a CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 1/7 bank under the Banking Companies Act 5 of 1970, carrying on the business of banking throughout India, having his head office at Pune and branch office at Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. It is stated stated that defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 had availed term loan (vehicle) facility from plaintiff bank vide Loan Account No. NP8-517 ( 60014051129) and defendant No.3 stood guarantor/ surety of the principal borrower i.e defendant No.1 & 2. It is further stated that defendant No.1 & 2 vide loan application of dated 27.8.2008 requested the plaintiff bank for grant of term loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) for purchase of vehicle. The plaintiff bank granted the said amount on defendant's executing loan documents on 27.8.2008. The terms and conditions of said sanctioned/acceptance letter of the bank are accepted by defendant No.1 & 2 and credit facility was guaranteed by defendant No.3.
As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, defendants were to repay the entire term loan with interest @ 12.5 per annum on reducing balance with monthly installments of Rs. 16009/- in 84 months w.e.f September,2008. It is further stated that defendants were liable to pay addtional charge of 2% as penal interest over the due amount if any. For consideration of the term loan, the defendants had signed and executed documents viz; RF45- request letter dated 27.8.2008 by CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 2/7 defendant No.1 and acceptance of terms and conditions of the agreement; RF 46/47, a demand promissory note executed by defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of plaintiff bank; RF 66J, composite deed of hypothecation signed and executed by defendant No.1 & 2 for repayment of loan etc and penal interest of 2 % in favour of plaintiff bank; F-154A Guarantee Agreement signed and executed by defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiff bank and F-260 receipt of loan amount of Rs.9,00,000/- vide demand draft No. 874397 for Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith undertakings/consent to recover the loan amount without prior notice etc. The defendants failed to make payment of loan amount sanctioned to them. The plaintiff bank sent notice of dated 7.11.2010, 7.12.2010 and 8.12.2010 to defendant No.1 to clear the due amount, but defendant No.1 did not pay heed to such requests. Hence, the plaintiff bank was compelled to send Pre- SARFAESI Act, 2002 notice of dated 15.4.2011 to defendants with request to clear due amount of Rs. 7,88,452/-. However, despite service of the said notice, defendants neglected and avoided to pay the due amount. Hence, it is prayed that defendant No.1 & 2 being the borrower of term loan amount of Rs.9,00,000/- alongwith interest and defendant No.3 being the guarantor/surety of the outstanding loan amount are jointly and severally liable to clear the due loan amount of Rs.7,45,282/- as on date. CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 3/7 3 Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. Defendants did not appear in the case despite service. Hence, their defence was struck off by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order of dated 8.2.2013.
4 To prove their case, the plaintiff bank has examined Shri Surender Singh Dagar Assistant General Manager, as PW.1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW.1/X and has reiterated the pleas taken by them in the plaint and got exhibited documents from Ex.PW.1/A, Ex.PW.1/1 to Ex.PW.1/14 i.e GPA, original loan application and sanctioned letter, copy of the agreement, receipt of loan amount, demand promissory note, composite deed of hypothecation, guarantee agreement, undertakings and proforma invoice of Glaxy Toyota, notices and receipts of payment made by the defendant.
He has further stated that defendant No.1 after filing of the suit, has deposited certain amount from time to time with the plaintiff bank. As such after adjustment giving credit/adjustments of the part payment from time to time, an amount of Rs. 4,55,456/- was recoverable from defendants till 30.6.2013 as per the books of accounts being maintained by the plaintiff bank. He has got exhibited the statement of account as Ex.PW.1/15. 5 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the material placed on record.
CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 4/7 6 To ascertain as to whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving its case or not, a Iook has to be made to the testimony of Shri Surender Singh Dagar, PW.1 and the documents got exhibited by him.
Ex.PW.1/1 is the application made by defendants Smt. Krishna and Suresh Kumar for grant of loan for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- ; Ex.PW.1/2 is the sanction letter of loan for the said amount for purchase of vehicle at the rate of interest 12.25 per cent per annum to applicants/defendants Smt. Krishna and Suresh Kumar; Ex.PW.1/4 is the receipt of loan amount by the applicants/defendants Smt. Krishna and Suresh Kumar; Ex.PW.1/5 is the promissory note executed by applicants/defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank and Ex.PW.1/7 is the guarantee agreement executed by defendant No.3. Thus, it is established from these documents that the plaintiff bank had granted loan on the application of defendants for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to defendant No.1 and 2 viz; Smt. Krishna and Suresh Kumar and defendant No.3 Shri Satish Kumar stood surety for defendant No.1 and 2.
Now, it has to be seen as to whether the defendants made payment of the loan amount or not. In his testimony Shri Surender Singh Dagar, PW.1 has stated that defendant failed to make regular payment of the loan amount. They issued CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 5/7 letters/notices Ex.PW.1/9 to Ex.PW.1/11 and also Pre SARFAESI notice Ex.PW.1/12 for making payment of the due amount. Though the suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs. 7,45,282/-, however, in the evidence Ex.PW.1/X filed on record, Shri Surender Singh Dagar, PW.1 has stated that after filing of the present suit defendant No.1 deposited certain amount from time to time and after making adjustments, a sum of Rs. 4,55,456/- was due and recoverable from the defendants.
7 Thus, from the testimony Shri Surender Singh Dagar, PW.1 which has gone rebutted and unchallenged, it can safely be concluded that defendant No.1 and 2 Smt. Krishna and Shri Suresh Kumar approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as is evident from Ex.PW.1/1; the said amount was granted to defendant No.1 & 2 for purchase of a vehicle duly received by them as is evident from Ex.PW.1/2 and Ex.PW.1/4 and letters/notices Ex. PW.1/9 to 12 show that defendant No.1 & 2 did not make payment of the loan amount regularly and were in default. Though in the plaint an amount of Rs. 7,45,282/- has been claimed by the plaintiff bank, however, Shri Surender Singh Dagar, PW.1, has stated in his affidavit that defendant No.1 deposited certain amount after filing of the present suit and after due calculation, a sum of Rs. 4,55,456/- was still due to the defendants, the said amount is taken as CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 6/7 amount for recovery.
8 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff bank has succeeded in proving its case. Hence, a decree for recovery of Rs.4,55,456/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs, Fifty Five Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty Six) alongwith interest at the rate of 12.25 % per annum from the date of filing the present suit till its realization, is passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against defendant No.1 and 2 being the borrowers and Defendant No.3 being the guarantor as they are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Costs of the suit is also allowed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( SUKHDEV SINGH )
03.08.2013. Addl. District Judge:05
West District: THC
Delhi:
CS No. 1447/11/11 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Krishna etc. Page 7/7