Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Raj Kumar on 6 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 04 (DIGITAL) - SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) 38/2025
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Through its Branch :
Masjid Moth, situated at C-6, Panchshccl
Enclave, New Delhi-110017
....Plaintiff
Versus
RAJ KUMAR
S/o Shri Anirudh Yadav
R/o PO: Joriya, Tchsil Kotkasim,
Alwar, Rajasthan-301702
Also at:
Employce ID: 13730192
Through Commandant
AIR HQ.AIR FMN SIG COY,
C/o 56 APO, Delhi Cantt.
New Dclhi-110010
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 27.01.2025
Date of final arguments heard : 05.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 06.01.2025
Ex-Parte Judgment:
1.Vide this ex-parte judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs.13,08,851/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 10.10% per CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 1 of 7 Digitally State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar signed by AJAY AJAY KUMAR KUMAR JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.01.06 16:44:06 +0530 annum, filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff, State Bank of India, is a statutory body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and is engaged in the business of banking, having its Corporate Office at Mumbai and a Local Head Office at New Delhi. The present suit has been instituted through its Masjid Moth Branch, New Delhi.
3. It is averred that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of a personal loan of Rs.13,00,000/- under the "Xpress Credit Loan Scheme", pursuant to which the loan was sanctioned on 02.11.2021 and Loan Account No. 40554626813 was opened. In consideration thereof, the defendant executed the requisite loan and security documents and agreed to repay the loan in 72 equated monthly instalments of Rs.24,150/- each along with interest @ 10.10% per annum and applicable penal charges in case of default.
4. After availing the said loan facility, the defendant failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and committed persistent defaults. Despite repeated reminders and issuance of legal demand notice dated 22.09.2024, the defendant failed to regularise the account, as a result of which the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 03.04.2023. As per the duly maintained and certified books of account of the plaintiff bank, a sum of Rs.13,08,851/- was outstanding and payable by the defendant as on 07.01.2025, along with further interest till realisation. Additionally, the Plaintiff also initiated Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings before the Delhi State Legal Services Authority on 28.09.2024. However, the Defendant failed to appear despite notices, hence the mediation process was accordingly treated as a non-starter dated 20.12.2024. In view of the CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 2 of 7 State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar Defendant's continued default and non-cooperation, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the outstanding dues and prayed following relief as under :
a) Pass a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,08,851/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty One Only) as on 07.01.2025 alongwith pendent lite and future interest thereupon @ 10.10 % per annum, in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant, and
b) award the cost of the suit and litigation charges in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and
c) pass any other/further relief/order(s), which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant herein in the interest of justice.
5. The present suit was filed on 21.01.2025 and summons were issued to defendant on 27.01.2025. Summons sent to defendant through speed post received back with report 'insufficient address'. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff filed application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for service through publication which was allowed vide order dated 27.05.2025. As per service report, defendant was duly served through publication i.e. on 12.07.2025 through 'The Times of India' and 'Rajasthan Patrika' respectively. Despite service, defendant not appeared before the court at any stage of proceedings, therefore, vide order dated 21.08.2025 defendant was proceeded ex-parte for non-appearance. Thereafter, plaintiff bank lead ex-parte PE and examined PW-1.
6. The plaintiff in evidence examined PW-1 Sh. Sachin Rajput, Deputy Branch Manager/AR of plaintiff bank who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon following exhibits:
1) Ex.PW1/1 is copy of Gazette notification published on 02.05.1987.
2) Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) (OSR) is Xpress Credit Loan Application CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 3 of 7 State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar form alongwith PAN Card, Aadhar Card & Salary Slip of defendant.
3) Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) is Sanctioned letter dated 02.11.2021
4. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is Personal Loan Agreement.
5) Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) is Arrangement Letter.
6) Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) is Irrevocable Standing Instructions given by borrower.
7) Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) is Consent Form
8) Ex.PW1/7A (Colly) is the loan account statement alongwith discharge quote and long enquiry (inadvertantly mentioned Ex.PW1/7 (colly) in the evidence affidavit).
9) Ex.PW1/8 is certificate of accrued interest.
10) Ex.PW1/9 (Colly) is Copy of legal demand notice dated 22.09.2024 alongwith postal receipts.
11) Ex.PW1/10 is affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 (3) of Commercial Court Act, 2015
12) Ex.PW1/11 is certificate under section 2(8) r/w section 2A (B) of Bankers Books Evidence Act.
13) Ex.PW1/12 is Non-Starter Report.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant consciously availed a personal loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 02.11.2021 under the Xpress Credit Loan Scheme and duly executed the Personal Loan Agreement, Arrangement Letter and allied documents, thereby unequivocally undertaking to repay the loan in 72 equated monthly instalments of Rs.24,150/- each along with contractual interest @ 10.10% per annum and applicable penal charges. It is submitted that the loan was duly disbursed and the defendant enjoyed the benefit thereof; however, he failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and committed persistent defaults, resulting in the loan account being classified as Non-Performing Asset on 03.04.2023 in accordance with RBI guidelines.
8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that despite repeated reminders and CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 4 of 7 State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar service of legal demand notice dated 22.09.2024, the defendant neither regularised the account nor cleared the outstanding dues. As per the duly maintained and certified statement of account (Ex.PW1/7A) as well as certificate of accrued interest (Ex.PW1/8), a sum of Rs.13,08,851/- (including interest from 03.04.2023 to 07.01.2025 of Rs. 1,88,197 plus Rs. 2,386/- arrears penalty) was outstanding and payable by the defendant as on 07.01.2025, along with further contractual interest till realisation. The dispute arises out of a commercial transaction, and even the statutory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was duly complied with, but the defendant failed to participate. It is further submitted that during proceedings, the defendant, despite service, has chosen not to contest the proceedings and has been proceeded ex-parte, therefore the plaintiff's claim stands proved by unrebutted documentary evidence, entitling the plaintiff to a decree as prayed for, with interest and costs.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. On appreciation of the pleadings, unrebutted ex-parte evidence and documents placed on record, this Court finds that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for grant of a personal loan of Rs.13,00,000/- under the "Xpress Credit Loan Scheme", which was sanctioned on 02.11.2021 and Loan Account No. 40554626813 was opened in his name. The defendant executed the Personal Loan Agreement, Arrangement Letter, Irrevocable Standing Instructions and Consent Form, thereby unequivocally undertaking to repay the loan amount in 72 equated monthly instalments of Rs.24,150/- each along with interest @ 10.10% per annum and penal charges in case of default. The disbursement of the loan and execution of CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 5 of 7 State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar the loan documents stand duly proved through the testimony of PW-1 and the documentary evidence on record.
11. It is further established that after availing the loan facility, the defendant committed persistent defaults and failed to adhere to the agreed repayment schedule. Despite repeated reminders and service of legal demand notice dated 22.09.2024, the defendant neither regularised the account nor cleared the outstanding dues, leading to classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 03.04.2023 in accordance with RBI guidelines. The plaintiff also complied with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; however, the defendant failed to participate, resulting in a non-starter report dated 20.12.2024. The defendant, despite due service including by way of substituted service through publication, failed to appear and contest the proceedings and was rightly proceeded ex- parte.
12. The statement of account (Ex.PW1/7A), duly supported by certificates under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and certificate of accrued interest, establishes that a sum of Rs.13,08,851/- (inclusive of interest from 03.04.2023 to 07.01.2025 and arrears penalty) was outstanding and payable by the defendant as on 07.01.2025. The testimony of PW-1 has remained unchallenged and inspires confidence. The suit arises out of a commercial transaction and the plaintiff has successfully proved its claim on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities by cogent, reliable and unrebutted evidence. The last payment was made on 31.12.2025 (Ex.PW1/7A), therefore the suit is filed well within limitation. The cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 6 of 7 State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar accordingly, this court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree of Rs. 13,08,851/-.
13. As regards the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095', the grant of pendente-lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I am granting pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the Plaintiff.
RELIEF
14. In view of above discussions, the present suit for recovery is decreed in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.13,08,851/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty One Only) along with pendent lite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 06th January 2026 (Ajay Kumar Jain) District Judge (Commercial Court)-04 (Digital), South District /Saket Courts/Delhi CS (COMM) 38/2025 Dt. 06.01.2026 pg. 7 of 7 State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar