Delhi District Court
Uco Bank Through Its Branch Manager vs Smt Sunita on 3 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm)/495/2023
DLSW010102582023
In the matter of:
UCO Bank
Having its Head Office at:
10, BM Sarani, Kolkata-700001
And Having its Branch Office At:
Om Vihar, Opposite Metro Pillar No. 706
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
... Plaintiff
Versus
Smt.Sunita
W/o Sh.Naresh Kumar
R/o WZ-82, Som Bazar Road
Om Vihar Phase-IV
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
... Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 26.10.2023
Date on which judgment reserved : 29.07.2024
Date on which judgment pronounced : 03.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present commercial suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank against defendant for recovery of Rs.3,41,066.17p. alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 1/8 Brief Facts
2. It is averred in the plaint that defendant had approached the plaintiff bank in the month of January, 2019 for availing Term Loan and loan agreement was executed on 19.08.2020. It is further averred in the plaint that Cash Credit Limit under PMEGP of Rs.4,81,800/- was disbursed in three different accounts i.e. Cash Credit Loan Account, Term Loan Account and GECL Account. However, despite availing aforesaid facilities, defendant did not pay the outstanding which was Rs.1,74,297.62p. in the Cash Credit Limit Account, Rs.1,10,543.66p. in the Term Loan Account and Rs.22,980.18p. in the GECL account making the total outstanding liability of Rs.3,07,821.46p. as on 26.10.2022. Accordingly, the present suit was filed claiming the aforesaid amount alongwith interest of Rs.33,244.71p. @ 10.80% per annum making total claim of Rs.3,41,066.17p.
3. The defendant, on being served, had filed the written statement and in the written statement, defendant denied of having approached the plaintiff bank in the year 2019 for the Term Loan and Cash Credit Facility. It was also denied that plaintiff bank had sanctioned Cash Credit Facility of Rs.4,81,800/-in the month of August, 2020 and that he had executed loan agreement dated 19.08.2020. The maintaining of three different accounts of defendant i.e. Cash Credit Loan Account, Term Loan Account and GECL Account were also denied by defendant. Defendant also denied he being a defaulter and there being an outstanding of Rs.3,07,821.46p. in his three different loan accounts. Accordingly, a prayer was made to dismiss the suit.
CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 2/8
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 15.04.2024:--
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.3,41,066.17p. From the defendant? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, then at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Thereafter, the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence. In its evidence, plaintiff bank examined Ms.Anamika Pathak, Manager cum Branch Head / AR of plaintiff having Branch Office at Om Vihar Phase-1, West Uttam Nagar, Delhi of plaintiff bank as PW1. PW1 relied upon demand promissory note dated 19.08.2020, Form No. A- 47, Composite Deed of Hypothecation dated 19.08.2020, Statement of Account, Copy of Interest Certificate and Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. No other witness was examined by plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
6. Despite grant of opportunity, defendant declined to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
7. I have heard Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld.counsel for plaintiff bank and Ms. Amisha Vohra and Sh.Rahul Chandila, Ld.counsels for defendant and have carefully perused the record.
Arguments on behalf of plaintiff bank
8. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for plaintiff bank that in the present case, in the entire cross examination of PW1, CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 3/8 disbursement of three different loans to defendant has not been disputed. It was further submitted that defendant had also executed a promissory note dated 19.08.2020 admitting her liability of Rs.4,81,800/-and the said document has not been disputed by the defendant in the entire cross examination of PW1. It was further submitted that defendant has also not disputed the execution of composite deed of hypothecation dated 19.08.2020 Ex.PW1/4 wherein details of Term Loan and Cash Credit Loan, have been specifically provided. It was further submitted that plaintiff bank has also furnished on record bank statement with regard to three different loans availed by defendant i.e. Term Loan, Cash Credit Loan and GECL and the outstanding amount in the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 has also not been disputed in the cross examination of PW1. Therefore, plaintiff has proved its case against defendant that it is entitled to claim Rs.3,41,066.17p. from the defendant. Accordingly, a prayer was made to decree the suit.
Arguments on behalf of defendant
9. On the other hand, Ld.counsel for defendant has submitted that it has come in the cross examination of PW1 that the Term Loan and the Cash Credit Facility was disbursed to the defendant in the year 2019 but no loan agreement has been placed on record by the plaintiff bank. It was further submitted that PW1 has also admitted in her cross examination that no loan was disbursed qua hypothecation agreement dated 19.08.2020 Ex.PW1/4. Therefore, in the absence of any loan agreements of the year 2019, plaintiff bank has failed to prove disbursement of any loan to CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 4/8 defendant in the year 2019 and hence, the present suit filed by plaintiff bank is required to be dismissed.
10.I have considered the rival submissions of respective counsels and have carefully perused the record.
Findings
11.My findings on various issues is as under:--
Issue No.1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.3,41,066.17p. From the defendant? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has examined PW1 Ms.Anamika Pathak, who is the Manager cum Branch Head of plaintiff's West Uttam Nagar Branch, Delhi. In her cross examination, PW1 had admitted the suggestion given by the defendant that Term Loan of Rs.3,06,800/- was disbursed to defendant on 31.01.2019, Cash Credit Facility of Rs.1,75,000/-was disbursed on 14.02.2019 and GECL Term Loan of Rs.34,000/- was disbursed on 27.07.2020. Although it is true that Loan agreements of the aforementioned three loans have not been filed on record by plaintiff but the fact of defendant taking Term Loan and the Cash Credit Facility in the year 2019 and GECL Term Loan in the month of July, 2020 has herself been admitted by the defendant in the cross examination of PW1 as discussed hereinabove. Therefore, even in the absence of loan agreements, the disbursement of three loans has been proved on record.
12.Further, PW1 has also supported the suggestion of the defendant that loan was disbursed in the year 2019 by deposing in her cross examination that pursuant to composite deed of hypothecation dated 19.08.2020 CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 5/8 Ex.PW1/4, no loan amount was disbursed and the loan amount was disbursed in the year 2019 and in the year 2020, only a fresh loan agreement was executed. Said deposition of PW1 stands duly corroborated by the composite deed of hypothecation Ex.PW1/4 wherein at page no.46, details of loan disbursed to the defendant of Rs.3,06,800/- and Rs.1,75,000/- are clearly mentioned. The defendant has never disputed the execution of the said deed of hypothecation Ex.PW1/4 and, therefore, has admitted the disbursement of Term Loan and Cash Credit Loan as aforementioned.
13.Further, the testimony of PW1 also stands corroborated on record by the bank statements filed of three different loans which were Ex.PW1/5 collectively. From the bank statement filed on record i.e. Ex.PW1/5, it has been established on record that the Term Loan was disbursed on 31.01.2019, Cash Credit Facility was sanctioned on 14.02.20219 and the GECL loan of Rs.34,000/- was disbursed on 27.07.2020. All the aforementioned three bank statements Ex.PW1/5 (colly) have not been disputed by the defendant in the cross examination of PW1. Further, defendant has also admitted her liability of Rs.3,06,800/- and Rs.1,75,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.4,81,800/- vide demand promissory note dated 19.08.2020 Ex.PW1/3, which was not disputed in the cross examination of PW1.
14.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, plaintiff bank has proved that defendant was disbursed three loans in the year 2019 /2020 and as per the Statement of Account Ex.PW1/5, there was a total outstanding liability of Rs.3,07,821.46p. in all the three loan accounts. It is also proved as per Ex.PW1/6 that defendant was liable to pay CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 6/8 interest of Rs.33,241.71p. for the period from 27.10.2022 till 11.10.2023 calculated @ 10.80% per annum. The total of outstanding principal and interest comes to Rs.3,41,066.17p. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
15.Issue No. 2Whether plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, then at what rate and for what period? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff bank has claimed pendente lite and future interest @15% per annum. However, no agreement has been filed on record to show that defendant had agreed to pay interest @15% per annum on the outstanding loan amount. Even otherwise, interest @15% per annum is highly exorbitant and unreasonable and no nationalized banks charges such high rate of interest. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to prove that plaintiff bank is entitled to interest @15% per annum. However, this court while exercising its discretion under Section 34 CPC and as the transaction in question is commercial, deems it appropriate to grant interest @9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.3,07,821.46p. from 12.10.2023 till the date of realization. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
16.Issue No.3 Relief.
In the light of my findings given to aforesaid issues, the suit of plaintiff bank is decreed and defendant is directed to pay Rs.3,41,066.17p. to the plaintiff bank.
CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 7/8 Further, defendant is also directed to pay interest @9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.3,07,821.46p. from 12.10.2023 till the date of realization. However, plaintiff shall pay appropriate court fees on the interest amount so calculated from 12.10.2023 till the date of decree. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
17.Subject to payment of court fees as aforementioned, decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signedVIKAS by VIKAS DHULL Announced in the open court DHULL 2024.08.03 Date:
15:32:23 +0530 Dated: 03.08.2024 (Vikas Dhull) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 South-West, Dwarka Courts New Delhi CS (Comm)/495/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Sunita 8/8