Delhi District Court
Syndicate Bank vs . Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 18 April, 2011
Suit No. 248/2010
Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.C. MALIK: ADJ05 (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Suit No. 248/2010
Unique I.D. No. 02401C0424242010
IN THE MATTER OF
SYNDICATE BANK, A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER
OF UNDERTAKING ) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS
HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL, KARNATAKA576 119
A BRANCH OFFICE AT DEV NAGAR, DELHI
DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER
SHRI A.K. CHAKROVARTHY AND DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF THE PLAINTIFF BANK. ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA
PROPRIETOR OF M/S VEE KAY ENTERPRISES,
VILLA NO. 12, GREENWOOD COMPEX
G. NIRWANA COUNTY, GURGAON (HARYANA).
Also At : Chef Style,
South City Second
FBlock Market,
DLF Gurgaon (Haryana).
Also At : 412/2, Upper Anand Prabat,
New Delhi110005. ... Defendant
Suit For Recovery Of Rs. 5,56,540/
(Rupees Five Lac Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Only)
Plaint presented on 16092010
Arguments heard on 18042011
Page 1 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi
18.04.2011
Suit No. 248/2010
Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia
Judgement delivered on 18042011
JUDGEMENT
1. The Plaintiff, a nationalized bank, has instituted the present ordinary suit for recovery of money against the defendants through its Chief Manager and Principal Officer Sh. A.K. Chakrovarthy who is also well conversant with the facts of this case. He is competent to do all the needful in this respect by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff bank in his favour.
2. As per averments made in the plaint, defendant Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatia sole proprietor of M/s V.K. Enterprises running his sole proprietory business at Villa No. 12, Greenwood Complex, G. Nirwana County, Gurgaon (Haryana) had opened and for a considerable time maintained his Current A/c No. 90241010008725 in the name of his proprietorship firm with the plaintiff bank. During the course of operation of the said current account, the defendant maintained good relationship with the plaintiff bank till 28.09.2008, when defendant requested the plaintiff bank to allow a temporary Over Draft limit of Rs. 4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lac Only) in their aforesaid Current A/c vide their written request of the same date and the plaintiff bank after considering their old relationship, allowed the same on 29.09.2008 which has been so depicted in the Statement of A/c of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank.
3. After availing the aforesaid overdraft facility on 29.09.2008, the defendant did not adhere to financial discipline and the specific and implied terms Page 2 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi 18.04.2011 Suit No. 248/2010 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia and conditions, rules and regulations of the plaintiff bank applicable to the financial facility advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendant on his specific and written request dated 28.09.2008. Consequently, the account of the defendant showed a continuous and running debit balance in the said account and defendant deliberately, intentionally and with malafide intentions did not repay the same along with applicable and agreed rate of interest.
4. As per averments made in the plaint, there is an express and implied contract between the parties as defined in Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act that as and when any of the customers or consumer like the defendant is allowed a temporary financial facility in any form, at any point of time, the customer/client/consumer is under an obligation to repay the same alongwith interest applicable thereon for the said temporary Overdraft Limit/Financial Facility applicable to the account, as per the norms and rules & regulations of the plaintiff bank.
5. As per averments made in the plaint the conduct of the defendant as clearly reflected in the Statement of A/c of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank, established beyond doubt that the aforesaid temporary Overdraft Limit of Rs. 4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lac Only) availed by the defendant from the plaintiff bank was with dishonest and malafide intentions and as thereafter, nothing has been paid by the defendant since then.
6. As per averments made in the plaint since the financial facility Page 3 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi 18.04.2011 Suit No. 248/2010 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff bank is without any security, the same is in the form of a purely temporary overdraft limit and the present rate of interest @ 17% per annum with monthly rests is applicable to the same which the defendant is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff bank.
7. As per averments made in the plaint the requests of the plaintiff to the defendant to repay the aforesaid amount of temporary overdraft facility went in vain. Thereafter, under the compelling circumstances, the plaintiff bank also served a legal notice dated 19.07.2010 on the defendant through Regd. A.D. post through their counsel Shri Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate demanding the outstanding amount of the plaintiff bank as specified in the said notice but in vain.
8. As per averments made in the plaint as per the Statement of A/c of the defendant placed on record before the court, interest against the defendant has been debited only upto 15.09.2010 and the plaintiff bank is entitled to get the total amount of Rs. 5,56,540/ (Rupees Five Lac Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Only) from the defendant with future interest @ 17% per annum with monthly rests from the date of institution of the suit till final realization of the same. A copy of the Statement of A/c of the defendant, duly certified under the Banker's Books of Evidence Act, has been placed on record. The account of the defendant was declared NPA on 03.01.2009.
9. It has also been averred in the plaint that the rate of interest Page 4 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi 18.04.2011 Suit No. 248/2010 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia applicable to the overdraft facility is to vary from time to time as per the Reserve Bank of India directives and as per the guidelines of the plaintiff bank itself and at present rate of interest is 17% per annum with monthly rests which the defendant is liable to pay. The defendant is also liable to pay the service charges and penal interest @ 2% per annum as allowed by the Reserve Bank of India since the defendant has failed to adjust the account within the stipulated period. Thus the plaintiff bank under the compelling circumstances has instituted the present suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,56,540/ (Rupees Five Lac Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Only) along with pendentelite and future interest, with monthly rests, along with the costs of the suit.
10. As the defendant did not appear before the court on 11.01.2011 despite service of summons of the present suit on the defendant by way of publication in daily 'Veer Arjun' dated 22.11.2010, the defendant was proceeded exparte and thereafter this case was posted for a future date for recording the plaintiff's exparte evidence.
11. In support of its case, the plaintiff bank has examined its Chief Manager and Principal Officer Sh. A.K. Chakrovarthy as PW1. In his testimony the said sole witness of the plaintiff bank has tendered his affidavit Ex.P1 which bears his signatures at point A and B. He has proved on record Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/1, the written request of the defendant dated 28.09.2008 as Ex.PW1/2, the Legal Notice dated 19.07.2010 as Ex.PW1/3, Postal Receipts as Page 5 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi 18.04.2011 Suit No. 248/2010 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6, envelop received back with a report of refusal as Ex.PW1/7, certified copy of the statement of account of the defendant duly certified under the Banker's Books Evidence Act collectively as Ex.PW1/8. Thereafter, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff closed the plaintiff's evidence.
12. Arguments advanced by Sh. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate for the plaintiff bank have been heard and the record of this case has been perused.
13. In the course of his submissions Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that since the plaintiff bank has proved its case by examining their sole witness and has also placed on record all relevant documents, the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed, especially when the testimony of the plaintiff's sole witness has gone wholly unchallenged.
14. In his testimony PW1 Sh. A.K. Chakrovarthy, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff bank has fully supported the case of the plaintiff bank as set out in the plaint and has duly proved on record all the necessary documents required to be proved for the success of the present case. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff bank.
15. In view of the above discussion, I hereby pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff Syndicate Bank and against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 5,56,540/ (Rupees Five Lac Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Only) along with pendentelite and future simple interest @ 15% p.a. till Page 6 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi 18.04.2011 Suit No. 248/2010 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia realization of the decreetal amount with costs of this suit. Page 7 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi
18.04.2011 Suit No. 248/2010 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Dictated and Announced in ( S.C. MALIK )
the open Court on 18042011. ADJ05 (Central)
Delhi.
Page 8 of 6 S.C. Malik, ADJ05 (Central), Delhi
18.04.2011