Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS(COMM) NO. 446/2024
INDEX
SI. NOS. HEADINGS PAGE
NOS.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. Plaint 3-7
3. Summons of the suit and appearnace of 7-8
defendant
4. Written Statement 8-9
5. Replication 9 - 10
6. Admission and denial 10
7. Framing of Issues 10
8. Plaintiff's Evidence 11 - 12
9. Defendant's Evidence 12
10. Judgments relied upon and discussion 12 - 14
11. Findings and Analysis 14 - 27
12. Relief 27
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.12.13
14:20:53
+0530
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024
Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 1 of 27
MEMO OF PARTIES
In the matter of:
CANARA BANK
(A Corporate Body,
Constituted under the Banking Companies
[Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking]
(Act of 1977)
Having its Head Office at:
No.112, JC Marg, Bangalore - 560002,
Karnataka
And its Branch Office at:
Gandhi Nagar Branch, 25, Mahila Colony,
Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031
Through its AR Mrs. Shalini Chaudhary,
Senior Manager, Gandhi Nagar Branch,
25, Mahila Colony, Main Road, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi - 110031
.....Plaintiff
V/s
1.M/s Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier
Through its Partners
Mrs. Shashi Anupam,
Mr. Vivek Kumar
Head Office - Garhi Road,
Opp. Hanuman Mandir Basai, Gurgaon,
Delhi - 122006
Mob. 9555442918
Email: [email protected]
Also at:
G-14, 2nd Floor, Sector-6, Noida
Also at:
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024
Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 2 of 27
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13
14:21:00
+0530
Shop No.244, Kamla Market, Ajmeri Gate,
New Delhi - 110002
....Defendant No.1
2.Mrs. Shashi Anupam, Partner
A-125, Gupta Appartment,
Room 3, Gali No.2, Shakarpur,
East Delhi, Delhi - 110092
Mob. 95554 42918
....Defendant No.2
3.Mr. Vivek Kumar, Partner
A-125, Gupta Appartment,
Room 3, Gali No.2, Shakarpur,
East Delhi, Delhi - 110092
Mob. 93123 42424
Email: [email protected] ....Defendant No.3
Date of Institution 20.08.2024
Date of hearing arguments 09.12.2025
Date of judgment 13.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgement, this court shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant(s) for recovery of Rs.13,87,187/- along with interest.
THE PLAINT
2. It is submitted that the plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its head office at 112, JC Road, Bangalore- 560002, Karnataka and having its branch at Gandhinagar Branch, 25, Mahila CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 3 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:21:08 +0530 Colony, Main Road, Gandhinagar, Delhi- 11003. It is stated that the present suit is signed and verified by AR of the bank who is well conversant with the facts of the case and it is stated that he is competent and authorised to sign and verify the suit vide Power of Attorney dated 30.01.2018.
3. It is averred that the defendant no. 1 is a partnership firm of Defendant no. 2 and 3 and had approached the Plaintiff bank vide loan application dated 25.10.2020 seeking an overdraft facility of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the purpose of growth and expansion of transportation business.
4. It is stated that plaintiff bank had sanctioned the overdraft facility of Rs. 12,00,000/- vide Sanction letter dated 24.11.2020 towards the loan account no. 91821400002180. Furthermore, it is stated that the defendant(s) had executed the following documents prior to the sanction and disbursal of the above facility:
(1) Request for overdraft facilities dated 24.11.2020 (2) Guarantor agreement and undertaking by guarantor dated 24.11.2020 (3) Cash credit agreement dated 24.11.2020 (4) Letter of undertaking dated 24.11.2020
5. Furthermore, it is averred by the plaintiff bank that on 06.12.2021 and 21.03.2022, defendant issued an extension letter to the plaintiff requesting for extension of OD limit no. 91821400002180 for three months and the defendant on 30.06.2022 furnished the following documents to continue to avail the overdraft facility:
Letter of Renewal dated 30.06.2022 Loan application dated 30.06.2022 Sanction letter dated 30.06.2022 CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 4 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2025.12.13 14:21:15 +0530 Request for overdraft facilities dated 30.06.2022 Letter of undertaking dated 30.06.2022
6. It is stated that as per the abovesaid documents, time was important element in fulfilment of obligations including timely payments of the EMIs and failure to do so would entitle the plaintiff bank to claim overdue interest on outstanding amount apart from recalling of loan and that in case of default of any installment or any irregularity in the account of defendant, the plaintiff bank was entitled to charge penal interest at rate of 2% per month over stipulated rate of interest.
7. It is submitted that defendant(s) continued to intentionally and deliberately default on their financial obligations and therefore, the bank declared the defendant's account as NPA on 30.06.2023, as per mandate of RBI.
8. It is submitted that since the defendant refused to fulfil his part of obligations, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 14.03.2024 to recover its dues amounting to Rs. 13,16,062/-. Moreover, it is stated that the plaintiff bank has complied with Pre Institution Mediation Settlement, however, due to non appearance of the defendant(s), a non starter report dated 29.05.2024 was issued.
9. It is stated that plaintiff bank maintains the loan account of the defendant vide bearing loan account no. 91821400002180 and bare perusal of the statement of account reveals that there stands an outstanding balance of Rs. 13,87,187.5/- including interest and penalty as per loan documents executed in favour of plaintiff.
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 5 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.12.13 14:21:21 +0530
10. As far as the cause of action is concerned, it is stated that the cause of action firstly arose on 25.10.2020 when the defendants approached plaintiff bank to avail the overdraft facility amount to Rs. 12,00,000/-. It is stated that cause of action further arose when the defendant executed various loan documents to secure the facility and when the defendant approached the plaintiff for renewal of the overdraft facility dated 30.06.2022. It is submitted that the cause of action further arose when the defendant started defaulting in their payment and it further arose when the account was declared as NPA on 30.06.2023. The cause of action is stated to further arose when the non starter report was issued on 29.05.2024 and the cause of action is stated to be still subsisting and continuing.
11. It is further stated that the present suit is filed within the limitation period as last payment was made on 30.06.2023 towards the total outstanding and the time spent in pre-litigation mediation pending before the DLSA from 15.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 is also to be excluded in computing the period of limitation.
12. As far as the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court is concerned, as all the loan documents were executed at branch situated at Gandhinagar Branch, 25, Mohalla Colony, Main Road, Gandhinagar, Delhi- 110031 and the transactions are initiated and loan was payable within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court, thus, the present court is stated to have territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court. Moreover, the present suit is also stated to be a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 13,87,187.51/- on which court fees of Rs.15,911/- has been paid.
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 6 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRANKIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.12.13 14:21:29 +0530
13. The plaintiff is claiming interest as follows:
Rate of interest claimed: 11.25% + 2% (penal interest) Date from which it is claimed: 30.06.2023 Date to which it is calculated: 25.07.2024 Total amount of interest claimed: Rs. 2,02,388/- Daily rate at which interest accrues after that date: 11.25% + 2% (penal interest)
14. Prayer has been made to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 13,87,187.51/- as on 25.07.2024 at contractual rate of interest @ 11.25% p.a. alongwith 2% penal interest over and above the contractual rate of interest and for passing a decree for pendente lite and future interest at contractual rate @ 11.25% per annum in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and also award the costs of present suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
The plaint is supported by affidavit and statement of truth of the AR of the plaintiff.
SUMMONS OF THE SUIT AND APPEARNACE OF DEFENDANT
15. The present suit was filed on 20.08.2024. Summons of the suit were directed to be issued vide order dated 16.10.2024. Vide order dated 22.11.2024, it was observed that defendant was not served and summons sent to the defendant no. 1 at first and second address have not been received back and it was directed that defendant be served afresh through whatsapp as well as email and through concerned District Judge as well as speed post and also through process server. Vide order dated 07.01.2025, it was observed that CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 7 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.12.13 14:21:36 +0530 defendant(s) have been served on 12.12.2024 and defendant appeared physically in the court with their counsel.
16. Thereafter, the defendant(s) had filed their written statement physically on 24.01.2025 and e-filed on 13.01.2025. Vide order dated 21.08.2025, the delay in filing of WS was condoned subject to cost of Rs.
500/- payable to the plaintiff and the cost was paid and WS was taken on record.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
17. The defendant(s) had filed written statement contending that plaintiff has concealed the true, material and relevant facts and has not approached this court with clean hands as the plaintiff has concealed the fact that defendants had paid EMIs of the said loan till 01.07.2023 amounting approximately to Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff in respect of loan amount.
18. The defendant(s) in their WS has admitted the fact of availing the overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 12,00,000/- which was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 24.11.2020. However, it is contended that the plaintiff has taken the signature of the defendant no. 2 and 3 on bunch of papers including some blank papers as the defendant could not read those papers and that since the defendants were facing the financial crisis so they had signed the blank papers.
19. It is further submitted by the Defendants that they were in debt as their business was in losses and they had to wind up their business. Moreover, it is submitted by the defendant that the said loan amount was insured and it CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 8 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:21:43 +0530 was told by the plaintiff bank that in case the defendants are not able to repay the loan amount, the insurance policy will cover the loan amount.
20. Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied and are not repeated here for sake of brevity and prayer has been made to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The WS is supported by the affidavit(s) and statement of truth(s) of the Defendant no. 2 and 3.
REPLICATION
21. The plaintiff in the replication filed has stated that the defendant(s) after having duly availed the sanctioned credit facilities from the plaintiff bank, failed to repay the amount due as per agreed terms and are now seeking to delay the proceedings by raising frivolous objections.
22. It is further stated that the defendant's plea regarding the alleged signing of blank papers is an afterthought and without any supporting evidence, rather all the documents are duly signed, accepted and acted upon by the defendants. Thus, the defence taken is sham and deserves to be discarded at the outset.
23. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not concealed any fact and the entire transaction, including sanction, disbursement, operation and default in repayment is clearly mentioned in the plaint and supporting documents i.e. statement of account. Moreover, it is submitted that the defendant's plea that signatures were obtained on blank papers is baseless as all the documentation was signed voluntarily in normal course of availing the credit facilities and now the defendant can not disown executed documents.
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 9 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.13 14:21:53 +0530
24. It is further submitted that plaintiff never gave any assurance regarding the insurance covering the entire loan liability and the defendants are misrepresenting facts. Rest of the contents of the WS are denied by the plaintiff and prayer has been made to reject the WS and decree the suit of the plaintiff.
ADMISSION AND DENIAL
25. The defendant no.2 and 3 in the affidavit of admission/denial of documents has admitted the following documents: -
(1) Copy of loan application dated 25.10.2020 as Ex. P1; (2) Copy of sanction letter dated 24.11.2020 as Ex. P2; (3) Copy of statement of accounts of defendant as Ex. P3.
26. On the other hand, the plaintiff in its affidavit of admission/denial of the document dated 11.07.2025 has denied the following documents: (i) copy of bank account statement of defendant no.1 and (ii) certificate u/s 63 of BSA, 2023.
FRAMING OF ISSUES:
27. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed:
ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? If so, to what amount? OPP ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP ISSUE NO. 3: RELIEF.
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 10 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.13 14:22:01 +0530 PLAINITFF'S EVIDENCE
28. Plaintiff in support of their case and in order to prove its case, has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rahul Tiwari, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff Bank who is examined as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
• Copy of GPA of deponent dt. 10.08.2023 as Ex.PW1/1a; • Copy of loan application dt. 25.10.2020 as Ex.PW1/2; • Copy of sanction letter dt. 24.11.2020 as Ex.PW1/3; • Original request for overdraft facilities as Ex.PW1/4; • Original guarantee agreement, guarantee covering letter and undertaking of guarantor dt. 24.11.2020 as Ex.PW1/5 (colly); • Original cash credit agreement as Ex.PW1/6; • Original letter of undertaking dt. 24.11.2020 as Ex.PW1/7; • Original extension letter dt. 06.12.2021 and 21.03.2022 as Mark PW1/8; • Original letter of renewal as Ex.PW1/9; • Original loan application dt. 3.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/10; • Original sanction letter dt. 30.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/11; • Original request for overdraft facilities dt. 30.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/12; • Original letter of undertaking dt. 30.06.2022 as Ex.PW1/13; • Copy of legal notice dt. 14.03.2024 along with postal receipts as Ex.PW1/14 (colly);
• Original non-starter report dt. 29.05.2024 as Ex.PW1/15; • Statement of accounts of both the accounts of the defendants are exhibited as Ex.PW1/16 (colly) (also Ex.P3); • Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 as Ex.PW1/17; • Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/18;
• Certificate u/s 63(4) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 as CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 11 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.13 14:22:11 +0530 Ex.PW1/19; • Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6(3) of CPC as Ex.PW1/20.
He was cross examined at length by counsel for defendant. Thereafter, PE was closed on his statement.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
29. In rebuttal, defendant no.2 has examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as DW1/A and has relied upon the document i.e. Certified copy of bank account statement of defendant no.1 as Ex.DW1/1. He was also cross examined at length by counsel for plaintiff. 29.1 Sh. Vivek Kumar, partner of M/s Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier examined as DW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A and relied upon the documents i.e. • Certified copy of bank account statement of defendant no.1 is already Ex.DW1/1;
• Certificate under Section 63 of BSA as Ex.DW2/1.
He was also cross examined at length by counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, DE was closed.
JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON AND DISCUSSION
30. The ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble SC in State Bank of Travancore vs Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd III (2011) SLT 53 and has argued that the suit is not filed by a duly authorized person.
30.1. In the said case, the suit was filed by the respondent through Sh. Ashok K. Shukla who described himself as one of the directors of the company and claimed that he was authorised by Shri Raj K. Shukla, the CEO of company vide letter dated 02.01.2003. However, the appellant had objected to CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 12 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:22:19 +0530 the maintainability of the suit on the ground that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised to file the suit.
30.2. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, trial court dismissed the suit on ground that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised to file the same. Being aggrieved by it, the respondent approached the Hon'ble HC which decreed the suit and reversed the finding of trial court. 30.3. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant before Hon'ble Supreme Court that the authorization by Sh. Raj K Shukla was not a valid authorization and that no board of resolution was filed on record authorizing Sh. Ashok K Shukla to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the company. The Hon'ble SC held that respondent has not produced any evidence to prove that Sh. Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a director of the company and a resolution was passed by the board of directors authorising Sh. Ashok K Shukla to institute the suit and that the letter of authority issued by Sh. Raj K Shukla was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed by board of directors delegating its power to Shri Raj K Shukla to authorize another person to file the suit. Thus, the judgment of trial court dismissing the suit was upheld.
30.4. The counsel for the defendant in the present case after placing reliance on above judgement has contended that the present suit is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that AR of the plaintiff was not authorised to institute the present suit. However, the said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the said case, the plaint was filed by Sh. Ashok K Shukla who was authorised by CEO of the company. The Hon'ble SC held that such authorization was improper as the CEO who had authorised Ashok K Shukla to institute the suit was not authorised to do so. However, in the facts of the present case, the plaint was filed by AR of the bank, Ms. Shalini Chaudhary, who was working as Senior manager and she had also filed one GPA CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 13 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:22:26 +0530 authorising her to institute the suit. Moreover, she can institute the suit by virtue of being a principal officer of the plaintiff bank as per judgement of Hon'ble SC in United Bank of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar AIR 1997 SC 3. Therefore, this case does not support the contention of the defendant. However, this contention of the defendant is dealt in detail in issue no. 1.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
31. The court has heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as ld. counsel for the defendant and has also gone through the records of the case. The issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree? if so, to what amount? opp
32. The present suit is commercial in nature and squarely falls within the purview of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act as the transaction between the parties was commercial and the amount claimed is more than Rs. 3 Lacs i.e. the specified value fixed for the Commercial Courts and hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.
33. Plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre- Institution Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act, as the nonstarter report dated 29.05.2024 which mentions the reason as "Notices issued to the opposite parties via speed post for 15.05.2024 reported to be unserved on the 1st address with the report addressee cannot be located for all the opposite parties, no such person on the address 3 for all the opposite parties. Addressee moved on the 2 nd address of the opposite party 1 and 2, unclaimed on the 2 nd address for the opposite party
3. Notices for 29.05.2024 remained unserved with the report addressee can not CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 14 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:22:35 +0530 be located on the address 1, addressee moved on the address 2, no such person on the address 3 for all the opposite parties. No new addresses of the opposite parties was provided by the applicant. Hence, non starter report issued."
34. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the loan was sanctioned by the branch of the plaintiff bank located at Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 and the documents are executed by the defendant at the above said branch. Moreover, the account of the defendant was also being maintained at the above said branch. Therefore, cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore, the present court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
35. As far as the limitation is concerned, the perusal of the record reveals that the account was declared as NPA on 30.06.2023 and perusal of the statement of account (Ex. PW-1/16) reveals that the last payment of Rs. 3500 and 4500 was made on 30.06.2023. The period for filing the present suit is three years. Thus, the present suit being filed on 20.08.2024 is filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
36. At the outset, it would be pertinent to deal with the contention of the defendant that the suit filed is not maintainable as the AR of the plaintiff was not authorised to institute the suit. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble SC in State Bank of Travancore vs Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd (Supra) and it was contended that since no board of resolution is on record authorising the AR of the plaintiff to sign, verify and institute the plaint, the suit can not be said to be maintainable before the court being not properly instituted.CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 15 of 27
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:22:45 +0530
37. It would be pertinent to mention here that in the above noted case, one CEO of company had on its own authorised another person to institute the suit and there was no board resolution empowering the CEO of the company to authorize any such person. Therefore, Hon'ble SC has held that suit was not instituted by a person having authority to do so. However, this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case being squarely distinguishable on the facts of the case as the present suit has been filed by a public sector bank and the plaintiff has also filed one GPA.
38. It is a settled principal of law that a principal official of Bank can file suit as per Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC. In this regard, it would be pertinent to refer to judgement of Hon'ble SC in the case of United Bank of India vs Sh.
Naresh Kumar AIR 1997 SC 3 wherein it was observed as follows:
"In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 16 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:22:54 +0530 on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer.
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 17 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.12.13 14:23:02 +0530
The courts below could have held that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi must have been empowered to sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. In the alternative it would have been legitimate to hold that the manner in which the suit was conducted showed that the appellant bank must have ratified the action of Sh. L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint. If, for any reason whatsoever, the courts below were still unable to come to this conclusion, then either of the appellate courts ought to have exercised their jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have directed a proper power of attorney to be produced or they could have ordered Sh. L.K. Rohatgi or any other competent person to be examined as a witness in order to prove ratification or the authority of Sh. L.K. Rohatgi to sign the plaint. Such a power should be exercised by a court in order to ensure that injustice is not done by rejection of a genuine claim.
The Courts below having come to a conclusion that money had been taken by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 and husband of respondent no.3 had stood as guarantors and that the claim of the appellant was justified. It will be a travesty of justice if the appellant is to be non suited for a technical reason which does not go to the root of the matter. The suit did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and the only defect which was alleged on behalf of the respondents was one which was curable.
The court had to be satisfied that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi could sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. The suit had been filed in the name of the appellant company; full amount of court fee CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 18 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:23:11 +0530 had been paid by the appellant bank; documentary as well as oral evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant and the trial of the suit before the Sub Judge, Ambala, had continued for about two years. It is difficult, in these circumstances, even to presume that the suit had been filed and tried without the appellant having authorised the institution of the same. The only reasonable conclusion which we can come to is that Sh. L.K. Rohatgi must have been authorised to sign the plaint and, in any case, it must be held that the appellant had ratified the action of Sh. L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint and thereafter it continued with the suit....."
38.1. Similarly, in the judgment of "Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Bharat Bhushan Sharma", in RFA No. 343/2001 decided by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in 06.12.2010 wherein, the issue was as to whether the suit was properly instituted and whether the officer had authority for signing and verifying the plaint, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as below:
".....3. In my opinion the court below has clearly fallen into an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaint was not duly signed and verified. In terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, any principal officer of a corporation, such as the appellant, can sign and verify the pleadings. It need not be gainsaid that an Accounts Officer (Legal) is definitely a principal officer of the appellant corporation. In this regard reference may be made to Section 2(30) of the Companies Act, 1956 which defines an "officer" and which provision reads:-CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 19 of 27
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:23:20 +0530 "officer" includes any director, manager or secretary, or any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the Board of directors or any one or more of the directors is or are accustomed to act;"
The aforesaid is an inclusive definition. Though there appears to be possibly a mistake in the language of the said sub-section because it is an officer who acts on the instructions of the board and not vice versa which appears to be wrongly stated in this section, however it is quite clear that an officer of a corporation includes besides a Director or Manager or Secretary, a person who is having duties as cast upon him by the Board of Directors and an Accounts Officer thus would also be a principal officer within the meaning of Order 29 Rule 1 CPC.
4......
5. Reference may also be made usefully to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar & others (1996) 6 SCC 660, in which, in para 13, it is said that there is a presumption of valid institution of a suit once the same is prosecuted for a number of years. This test as laid down by the Supreme Court is also satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the suit in fact has been prosecuted for four years by the appellant corporation for seeking an appropriate decree against the respondent by adducing evidence. I may note that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and not a private company where there would be disputes between two sets of shareholders claiming right to management and one set of shareholders are opposing another set of shareholders CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 20 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:23:29 +0530 with respect to control and management of the company. This thus is an additional fact that there can be no dispute as to the authority of the person signing /verifying the pleadings and instituting the suit....."
In view of the above judgments, any principal officer can sign and verify the pleadings in terms of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC.
39. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit was signed, verified and instituted by Ms. Shalini Chaudhary who was working as Senior manager with the plaintiff bank. All the documents have been signed by Ms. Shalini Chaudhary. Moreover, the plaintiff had filed one copy of power of attorney whereby Ms. Shalini Chaudhary was empowered to sign, verify pleadings and file plaints, written statements and affidavits and any other pleadings in court.
In this regard, reference can be made to para 15 of the said General Power of Attorney dated 30.01.2018.
40. However, during the course of proceedings, the plaintiff bank had substituted Ms. Shalini Chaudhary with Mr. Rahul Tiwari as its Authorised Representative. An application in this regard was also filed by the plaintiff bank which was allowed vide order dated 09.10.2025. The plaintiff bank has also filed one GPA dated 10.08.2023 (Ex. PW-1/1a) which authorizes Sh. Rahul Tiwari to make, sign, verify, execute and present on behalf of bank the plaints, vakalats appeals, affidavits or statements etc. The relevant clause 28 of the Ex. PW-1/1a is as follows:
"To make, verify, sign, execute and present on behalf of the BANK the plaints, vakalats, appeals, affidavits or statements, CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 21 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:23:37 +0530 petitions or probate petitions, written statements or vakalatnamas or any other paper as may be expedient or necessary in the opinion of the said attorney to be made, signed, executed, presented or fined."
41. Thus, in view of the fact that the AR of the plaintiff bank has been authorised by the bank by way of the GPA is sufficient to hold that the suit was instituted properly. Moreover, as held in the case of United Bank of India vs Naresh Kumar, by virtue of the office, the concerned Branch Manager holds, he can sign, verify and institute pleadings. Moreover, when the suit is instituted by the public corporations, the suit must not be defeated on mere technicalities and substantive justice must be prevailed.
41.1. The Senior Manager/Branch Manager is certainly the principal officer who is authorized by virtue of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC not only to sign and verify the pleadings but also to institute the suit and therefore, the suit instituted by Ms. Shalini Chaudhary and later on pursued through Rahul Tiwari as Senior Manager is instituted and filed by a duly authorized person.Therefore, the contention of the defendant that suit is not properly instituted is not maintainable and is thus, rejected.
42. Now coming on to merits. It has been admitted by the defendants that they have availed the cash credit facility of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank and the same was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 24.11.2020. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendants have admitted the loan application (Ex. PW-1/2 also Ex. P1), Sanction letter (Ex. PW-1/3 also Ex. P2) as well as the statement of account of both the defendants CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 22 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:23:46 +0530 (Ex. PW-1/16 also Ex. P3) in their affidavit of admission and denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff.
43. Moreover, the DW-1 in his cross examination has admitted the fact of availing the loan/ cash credit facility from the plaintiff bank. The relevant cross of DW-1 is as follows;
"I agree that I have taken a loan for business purpose and I utilized the same for business purpose..... I have paid approximately Rs. 3 to 4 lakhs to the bank. My loan was of Rs.12 lakhs"
44. The DW-2 in his cross examination has also admitted the availing of the loan from the plaintiff bank. The relevant part of cross of DW-2 is as follows;
"I agree that I have taken a loan from the bank for business purpose and I utilized the same for business purpose"
45. Thus, on the basis of the admitted documents and unequivocal admissions by the Defendants in their cross examination as well as in written statement, the fact of availing the loan stands proved. Now what remains to be seen is whether the defendants have paid the entire due or not.
46. The defendant(s) in their written statement have also taken a plea that the bank had compelled them to sign on blank papers and since they were in dire need of money they had signed a bunch of blank papers. However, no document has been filed by the defendants in support of their contentions.
47. Relevant cross of DW-1 and DW-2 is as follows:
CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 23 of 27Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:23:56 +0530 Cross of DW-1:
"I have not filed any formal complaint or informed the bank regarding the signatures upon the blank loan documents..... . I have not placed on record any supporting documents against the allegations that the documents were blank while signing the same."
Cross of DW-2:
"I have signed on some of the blank documents, although, some of the documents were duly filled. I have not filed any formal complaint or informed the bank regarding the signatures upon the blank loan documents....... I have not placed on record any supporting documents against the allegations that the documents were blank while signing the same."
48. The defendants in their cross examination have deposed that they have not filed any formal complaint to the bank about this. Thus, this plea of defence that the defendant had signed blank documents is not substantiated and is mere oral averment. Further, this fact also cannot be ignored that the loan was initially granted in the year 2020 and was later renewed / extended in the year 2022. Once a person signs a document voluntarily, he cannot subsequently escape his liability and plead that he had signed blank documents. Even If he signs any blank document, he does so at his own peril. Reliance can be placed on the judgment in Corporation Bank Vs. Sushil Enterprises & ors. 2003 VIAD Delhi 467 dt. 16.5.2007 wherein it was held that:
"Nobody is expected to sign the documents without reading it or when it is blank and if he does so he does at his own risk and the very fact that the plaintiff Bank has disbursed the loan amount and defendants had availed it also shows CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 24 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:24:04 +0530 that the documents were valid and duly executed".
It was further held that :
"The admission of signatures of the defendant No. 1 upon the documents in question raises a presumption that the documents were duly filled in when these were signed. Had the defendants not availed the loan amount and had the payment of the machinery purchased by defendant No. 1 not been made by the plaintiff, the aforesaid plea of signing the documents when these were blank might have cut ice, not otherwise".
In view of the above case law and the fact that the defendant has signed the relevant documents of loan as borrower and have also executed the various agreements, the plea of the defendants that plaintiff has mis-used their documents cannot be taken into account and is liable to to be rejected.
49. The defendants in their cross examination has also admitted the fact of partially paying the EMIs to the bank. The relevant cross of the DW-1 and DW-2 is as follows:
Cross of DW-1:
"I have partially paid the EMI against the loan to the plaintiff bank."
Cross of DW-2:
"It is correct that I have not paid the EMI for the loan amount for a long time since 01.07.2023. It is correct that our loan account was declared NPA due to non payment of installments by us...... According to me, I owe an amount of Rs. 7 to 8 CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 25 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:24:13 +0530 lakhs towards the bank......We have paid approximately Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs to the bank. Our loan was of Rs.10 lakhs approximately."
50. Thus, from the testimony of the defendant as well it is clear that the defendants had only made part payments towards the loan amount and had not paid entire outstanding amount. The defendants have also filed one bank account statement (Ex. DW-1/1) which also corresponds with the statement of account filed by the plaintiff in as much as the balance as on 30.06.2023 on the date of NPA was Rs.11,93,626.92/- and after it no payment has been made by the defendants to the plaintiff bank. Thus, even from their documents, the liability of the defendants to pay the outstanding liability is proved.
51. The plaintiff has proved the bank account statement of the defendants (Ex. PW-1/16) which shows that a principal sum of Rs. 11,93,626/- is outstanding against the defendants. The same is corroborated by the account statement filed by the defendant (Ex. DW-1/1). Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay a principal amount of Rs. 11,93,626/- to the plaintiff bank.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so at what rate and for which period? Opp
52. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 11.25% p.a. The plaintiff has claimed the pre-suit interest of an amount of Rs.2,02,388/- from 30.06.2023 till 25.07.2024 @ 11.25% + 2% penal interest and the same is stated to be claimed to be based on the contract between the parties. Though, an amount of Rs.2,02,388/- is claimed as pre-suit interest, but, CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 26 of 27 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:24:22 +0530 on adding this amount on the principal amount i.e. Rs.11,93,626/-, the total comes to Rs.13,96,014/-. However, the claim of the plaintiff is only for an amount of Rs.13,87,187/- and plaintiff has also paid court fees only on Rs.13,87,187/-.
53. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 11.25% per annum. Since the plaintiff has prove that it is entitled to the principal amount, plaintiff is also entitled to interest at reasonable rate. Thus, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @9% p.a. from 30.06.2023 (i.e. date of NPA) till its realization.
Issue no.2 is accordingly answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 3/Relief :
54. In view of the findings on the above issue, the suit of the plaintiff Bank is hereby decreed in its favour and against the defendant for a principal amount of Rs.11,93,626/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.11,93,626/- from 30.06.2023, till its realization and cost to the extent of court fees and Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.13 14:24:29 +0530 Announced in the open court (Kiran Bansal) on 13.12.2025 District Judge, Commercial Court-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi/13.12.2025 CS (Comm) No. 446/2024 Canara BankVs. Jai Mata Di Goods Carrier Page 27 of 27