Delhi District Court
And Corporate Office At vs M/S J.P. Engineering Works on 19 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GARG
CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No:-DLCT03-004170-2022
CS No. 2023/2022
ICICI Bank Limited.
Having its Branch Office at:
2nd Floor, Videocon Towers,
Block E-1, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055.
Registered Office at:
Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007.
And Corporate Office at:-
ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051. ......Plaintiff
Versus
M/s J.P. Engineering Works,
Proprietor:- Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Tej Singh
having its offie at:-
SF-642, Sector-23,
Faridabad-121005.
Also At:-
Plot No. E-13, Sanjay Colony,
Sec-23, Near Gaunchi Police Chowki,
Faridabad-121005. .....Defendant
Date of institution : 08.09.2015
Date on which reserved for judgment : 06.12.2022
Date of decision : 19.01.2023
CS No. 2023/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. J.P. Engineering Works page1 of 6
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,12,925/-.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff bank being a legal entity filed the present suit against the defendant through its earlier Authorised Representative Sh. Rajiv Verma.
It is stated in the plaint that the defendant is a proprietorship firm and Om Prakash is the sole proprietor of the said firm. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of overdraft facility. That in view of the request of the defendant and the documents submitted by him, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned the overdraft facility (SBL Account Facility) in Current Account No. 630305005480 maintained by the defendant at the branch of plaintiff. That financial assistance by way of Over Draft Facility for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank in the month of February, 2017 to the defendant and the documents relating thereto were executed by the defendant on 26.02.2007. That the said OD Facility was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant on the terms and conditions contained in the terms and conditions governing the OD facility dated 26.02.2007 and terms have been renewed from time to time at the request of defendant. That the said OD facility was revolving in nature and amount withdrawn needs to be revolved once within 90 days. That the defendant was liable to deposit the interest on the said facility in the account and all amount shown as outstanding from time to time at the foot of the relevant account monthly in each year on the 30 th day of each month at the rate of interest which was -0.50% per annum above the sum of ICICI Bank Benchmark advance rate and the cash Credit Risk CS No. 2023/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. J.P. Engineering Works page2 of 6 Premium prevailing on each day that such Facility remains outstanding, plus applicable interest tax or other statutory levy, if any. That the benchmark rate was 14.75% per annum, the Cash Credit Risk Premium was 0.5% per annum and the Applicable Rate-Facility was 14.75% per annum. That the defendant further agreed to pay proceeding fee of Rs. 5000/- of the sanctioned limit plus applicable interest or other statutory levies. That the said Over Draft Facility was availed by the defendant in current account No. 630305005480 maintained by the defendant at the branch of plaintiff. That the defendant had executed the terms and conditions governing the OD Facility, among others, in favour of the plaintiff. That after availing the said facility up to the maximum limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- for business of defendant. That the defendant 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 of the OD Facility and the transaction documents, the defendant has been constantly defaulting in repayment of the contractual dues/charges and interest despite repeated reminders, requests and demands. That in view of the failure of the defendant in repaying the contractual dues/charges/interest towards the Overdraft Facility, vide legal notice dated 19.03.2015 called upon the defendant to make the payment of contractual dues of Rs. 2,12,925/- due as on dated 29.06.2015 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and the facility has been terminated but despite the said notice the defendant failed to make the payment of outstanding to the plaintiff bank. That as per statement of account an amount of Rs. 2,12,925/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff bank as on 29.06.2016. Hence the present suit.
CS No. 2023/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. J.P. Engineering Works page3 of 6
2. The defendant was served by way of publication in newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" dated 23.08.2016. However, despite service through publication, neither the defendant had appeared nor any Written Statement has been filed on behalf of defendant. Therefore, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2016.
3. Thereafter, plaintiff led its ex-parte evidence and examined its new AR Sh. Rajiv Verma as a witness whose affidavit of evidence is marked as Ex.PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He also exhibited the following documents:-
EX. PW-1/1 : Copy of Power of Attorney. (OSR)
EX. PW-1/2 : Sanction of Facilities dated 26.02.2007.
EX.PW-1/3 : Terms and Conditions of OD Facility
dated 26.02.2007.
EX.PW-1/4 : Notice dated 19.03.2015
Mark X : Postal Receipt
EX.PW-1/5(colly) : Statement of account dated
29.06.2015
EX.PW-1/6 : Certificate U/S 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
Thereafter, vide his separately recorded statement, ex-parte PE was closed. The matter was then listed for ex-parte final arguments.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the present suit was dismissed in default vide Order dated 31.10.2017 and the same was restored vide Order dated 09.06.2022 upon allowing the application u/O IX Rule 4 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff.
CS No. 2023/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. J.P. Engineering Works page4 of 6 Ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff were heard. Case file perused.
5. As per the statement of account Ex.PW1/5, the last cash payment of Rs.6,000/- was received from the defendant on 04.09.2014. Therefore, the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. This court has jurisdiction to try the present suit.
6. The OD Sanction Facility Form dated 26.02.2007 (Ex.PW1/2) bears signatures of the defendant. Ex.PW1/2 shows that the plaintiff bank had sanctioned the overdraft facility of Rs.2,00,00/- in Current Account No. 630305005480 maintained by the defendant with the plaintiff bank. Statement of account (Ex.PW1/5(colly)) shows that a sum of Rs.2,12,925 is outstanding against the defendant.
On the other hand, despite the notice of the suit in hand, defendant has not appeared before the Court to either dispute his signatures upon the Credit Facility Application form (Ex.PW1/3) or to dispute the plaintiff's case. As such, the entire evidence led by the plaintiff bank goes unrebutted and since the defendant has chosen to remain absent, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve plaintiff bank's version.
7. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum. It is settled law that plaintiff can be allowed to charge reasonable interest, whether in the form of penal interest or normal interest and the charging of unnecessary interest and other charges are totally contrary to the public policy and same is also against the well settled principles as postulated in Section CS No. 2023/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. J.P. Engineering Works page5 of 6 23 of Indian Contract Act. I have profit to refer the judgment of Double Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates (P) Ltd vs DDA, 2010 SCC online Del 2004 which provides that higher rates of interest which are against public policy, can be struck down by Court by finding such a rate of interest to be against the public policy. Any contract which is against public policy, is void, as per Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said judgment was also relied upon by Hon'ble Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case bearing R.F.A. No. 823/2004 titled as Sh. Sanjay Mittal vs Sunil Jain decided on 07.12.2018. The Hon'ble Single Bench has granted interest @ 9% per annum instead of 24% i.e., 2% per month.
Relief:-
8. Considering the aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the settled law, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,12,925/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the principal amount from the defendant as the interest claimed at the rate of 24% per annum seems unreasonable to this Court.
No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open (NEHA GARG)
court on 19.01.2023 Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS No. 2023/2022 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. J.P. Engineering Works page6 of 6