Delhi District Court
Karkardooma Courts vs Ms. Bhawna Kumari Sadh on 21 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Aman Kumar Sharma, DJS.
Civil Suit No: 1029/19
State Bank of India
(hereinafter called the transferee Bank) with
sanction of central Government and in
consultation with Reserve Bank entered into
negotiation for acquiring the business
including assets and liabilities of State Bank
of Hyderabad (hereinafter called the
Transferor Bank and shall mean and include
as State Bank of India, the transferee bank
vide merger gazette notification dated
22.02.2017 wheresoever context requires), a
statutory body constituted under State Bank
of India Act, 1955 having its head office at
State Bank Bhawan, Mumbai-440024, Local
head office at 11, Parliament Street, New
Delhi, various branches throughout Delhi
including one at Krishna Nagar, Delhi-
110051 and also RASMEC (East) situated at
Aggarwal Fun City Mall, First Floor,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 through its
Chief Manager, Mr. Ashok Kumar.
...Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Bhawna Kumari Sadh
W/o Sh. Sujit Kumar Sadh
R/o 2/62, Street no. 1,
School Wali Gali, East Azad Nagar,
Delhi-110051
...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.1,89,885/-(RUPEES ONE
LAKH EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
EIGHTY FIVE ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENT-LITE
AND FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9.90% PER
ANNUM TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION
CS no. 1029/19 State Bank of India vs Bhawna Kumari Sadh 1
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.08.2019
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 08.02.2023
DATE OF DECISION : 21.02.2023
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant, seeking recovery of (a) Rs.1,89,885/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five Only) along with pendente-lite interest and future interest at the rate of 9.90% per annum with monthly rests and cost of this suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff bank as discernible from the plaint of this suit and the documents filed along with the plaint of this suit is that the plaintiff bank is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; that this suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank through Mr. Ashok Kumar, Manager, who is competent to sign, verify and institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank as per the regulations 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulation, 1955, framed by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 50(3) of State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the prior approval of Government of India read with notification published in the Gazette including notification dated 27.03.1987; that the defendant had approached the Krishna Nagar Branch, Shahdara, Delhi of the plaintiff bank for grant of a car loan; that the plaintiff bank had considered the request of the defendant and sanctioned a car loan of Rs.5,15,000/- in favour of the defendant, on 25.11.2015; that in consideration of the sanctioning of the said car loan, the defendant had executed various documents in favour of the plaintiff bank including loan application form, arrangement letter dated 25.11.2015, loan-cum- hypothecation agreement dated 25.11.2015 and Annexure-I; that as per the said documents, it was inter-alia agreed between the plaintiff bank and the defendant that the interest rate payable on the term loan amount would be 9.95% per annum, with monthly rests, subject to change in banking guidelines and the loan amount would be repaid by the defendant, in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.12,999/-; that after CS no. 1029/19 State Bank of India vs Bhawna Kumari Sadh 2 taking the loan amount, the defendant had defaulted in repaying the loan amount to the plaintiff bank, as per agreed terms and conditions; that the car loan account no. 62443658556 of the defendant was classified as NPA on 08.11.2018; that as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank an amount of Rs.1,89,885/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five Only) including interest is stated to be outstanding against the defendant; that in this regard, the plaintiff bank had served a legal notice dated 23.06.2019, upon the defendant; that despite service of the said legal notice, the defendant had neither regularized his loan account nor cleared the dues of the plaintiff bank and that as such, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover from the defendant, the dues of Rs.Rs.1,89,885/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five Only) along with interest.
3. A perusal of the Court file reveals that upon filing of this suit, the summons for settlement of issues of this suit were ordered to be issued qua the defendant, on 15.09.2021; that as per the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, summons on the defendant were deemed to be served on 18.12.2021; that despite the said service, the defendant had not appeared in this Court, on 18.05.2022; that as a consequence thereof, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte and that the ex- parte evidence of PW1, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mahajan, Manager, SBI, RACPC Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 was recorded on 12.01.2023.
4. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Gopal Sharma, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff bank, on 08.02.2023. On the said date, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff bank had submitted that the case of the plaintiff bank stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mahajan, Manager, SBI, RACPC Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 and as such, the plaintiff bank should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
5. After considering the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff bank, on 08.02.2023 and perusing the record of the Court file, I find that this suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation against the defendant as the CS no. 1029/19 State Bank of India vs Bhawna Kumari Sadh 3 defendant had taken the car loan on 25.11.2015 and this suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank on 29.08.2019 i.e. within three years from 21.01.2019 i.e. the payment of the last installment by the defendant. Further, I find that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the defendant had taken the aforesaid loan at Krishna Nagar Branch, Delhi of the plaintiff bank, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
6. In respect of the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff bank, I find that during his examination, PW1, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mahajan, Manager, SBI, RACPC Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 has deposed in line with the pleadings made in the plaint of this suit and expressly stated that an amount of Rs.1,89,885/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five Only) along with interest is payable by the defendant, to the plaintiff bank. In support of his oral testimony, PW1 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mahajan, Manager, SBI, RACPC Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 has relied upon, copy of merger gazette notification dated 22.02.2017, Ex.PW1/1; true copy of gazette notification of SBI dated 27.03.1987, Ex.PW1/2; proforma invoice of proposed vehicle, Ex.PW1/3; loan application form, Ex.PW1/4; letter of arrangement/term and condition dated 25.11.2015, Ex.PW1/5; loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 25.11.2015, Ex.PW1/6; Annexure-I, Ex.PW1/7; copy of legal notice dated 23.06.2019, Ex.PW1/8; postal receipt, Ex.PW1/9; courier receipt, Ex.PW1/10; statement of account duly certified as per Banker's Books Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/11(colly); certificate of accrued interest, Ex.PW1/12; certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/13; photocopy of insurance of hypothecated vehicle, Mark 'A'; copy of PAN card of defendant, Mark 'B'; copy of Aadhaar card of defendant, Mark 'C'; copy of election ID of defendant, Mark 'D'.
7. In my view, the unchallenged oral testimony of PW1, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mahajan, Manager, SBI, RACPC Karkardooma, Delhi-110032 supported by the aforesaid documents establishes that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,89,885/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five Only) to the plaintiff bank.
CS no. 1029/19 State Bank of India vs Bhawna Kumari Sadh 4
8. In respect to quantum of interest claimed by the plaintiff bank, I find that in the prayer clause, the plaintiff bank has sought pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 9.90% per annum with monthly rests. In my view, the claim of the plaintiff bank qua the pendente-lite and future interest is excessive and in the present case, the ends of justice would be met, if the plaintiff bank is granted pendente-lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
9. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid discussion, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.1,89,885/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Five Only) along with costs, pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
10. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (Aman Kumar Sharma)
today on 21st February, 2023 CJ-02/Shahdara District
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
CS no. 1029/19 State Bank of India vs Bhawna Kumari Sadh 5