Delhi District Court
And A Branch Office At Khureji Khas vs Mohd. Asif on 17 April, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMENDER RANA
JSCC/ASCJ/GUARDIAN JUDGE (EAST) KKD COURTS DELHI
Suit no. 510/12
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0 362052012
Vijaya Bank
(A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act. 1980,
having its Registered Office at 41/2, MG Road, Bangalore, Karnataka.
And a branch office at Khureji Khas, B - 218,
Priyadarshni Vihar, Delhi 110 092). .....Plaintiff
Vs.
Mohd. Asif
S/o. Mohd. Ahmed
R/o. 26, Ganesh Park,
Rashid Market,
Delhi - 110 051 .....Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 20.12.2012
Arguments heard/order reserved : 16.04.2014
Date of decision : 17.04.2014
Suit no. 510/12 1/5
2
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.
1,09,378/ against the defendant. Facts of the case are that plaintiff bank is
engaged in banking business and Sh. Sunil Kumar Kapoor is the Assistant
Manager of Khureji Khas Branch of the plaintiff Bank and he is fully
conversant with the facts of the case. It is averred that on the request of the
defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 60,000/ @ 12.50%
p.a. and additional interest @ 2% on the amount in default from the date of
default on the entire amount of loan facility outstanding which is then
payable on demand. The loan was agreed to be repayable in 60 equated
monthly installments of Rs. 1,350/ p.m. It is further averred that the loan
amount was credited in the A/c. no. CTL 990007 of the defendant. It is
further averred that at the time of grant of the said Composite Term Loan
Facility, the defendant executed requisite loan documents i.e., Demand
Promissory Note, Undertaking, Hypothecation Agreement and Letter of
Lien etc. dated 21.10.2000 in favour of the plaintiff bank. It is further
averred that defendant did not repay the loan amount inspite of repeated
requests made by the plaintiff bank. It is further averred that defendant
executed an acknowledgment of liability dated 17.09.2003 while
acknowledging the liability of Rs. 70,514/ and assuring the plaintiff bank to
repay the same. However, the defendant did not repaid the same. It is further
Suit no. 510/12 2/5
3
averred that defendant subsequently, acknowledged his liability on
26.12.2005of Rs. 70,594/ and another acknowledgment on 20.12.2007 for a sum of Rs. 66,555/ Thereafter, defendant once again executed an acknowledgment on 16.01.2010 while acknowledging the liability of Rs. 87,559/, however, defendant has failed to repay the loan amount alongwith the interest. Plaintiff bank served a demand notice dated 23.10.2012 upon the defendant through Registered AD, however, defendant failed to pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff bank and thus, they were constrained to approach this Court with a prayer for a money decree for an outstanding sum of Rs. 1,09,378/ which include interest @ 12.50% + 2% p.a., by filing the instant suit.
2 Summons of the suit were for settlement of issues could not be served upon the defendant through ordinary process and consequently defendant was served by way of publication in the newspaper "Vir Arjun"
dated 09.09.2013. However, defendant has opted not to appear and contest the suit and accordingly, he was proceeded exparte vide order dated
03.10.2013.
3 In support of their case, plaintiff bank has examined the witness i.e., Sh. Sunil Kumar Kapoor, Assistant Manager of plaintiff bank, who appeared in the witness box and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents Suit no. 510/12 3/5 4 of the plaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e., photocopy of General Power of Attorney - Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), Promissory note - Ex. PW1/2, Undertaking - Ex. PW1/3, Hypothecation Agreement - Ex. PW1/4, Letter of Lien - Ex. PW1/5, Acknowledgment of Liability dated 17.09.2003 - Ex. PW1/6, Acknowledgment of Liability dated 26.12.2005 - Ex. PW1/7, Acknowledgment of Liability dated 20.12.2007 - Ex. PW1/8, Acknowledgment of Liability dated 16.01.2010 - Ex. PW1/9, Statement of account Ex. PW1/10, Notice dated 23.10.2012 - Ex. PW1/11 and Envelope
- Ex. PW1/12.
4 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record of the case carefully.
5 The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant is exparte. So, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Press Trust of India Ltd. V/s. Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. ) & Ors. 2012 VI AD Delhi 2005".
6 The plaintiff has placed on record documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/12. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant is exparte. So, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony Suit no. 510/12 4/5 5 of the plaintiff bank. So the suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,09,378/ along with pendetilite interest @ 14.5% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization of the decreetal amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
k
(Announced in open Court (DHARMENDER RANA)
today i.e 17.04.2014) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURTS
Suit no. 510/12 5/5