Delhi District Court
Unknown vs M/S. A.K. International on 14 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGEcumRENT CONTROLLER
NORTHWEST : ROHINI : DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02404C0016872010
Suit No. 14/10
In re:
VIJAYA BANK, a body Corporate Constituted under the Banking
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980)
having its Head Office at Bangalore
And one of its Branch Offices at Samai Pur Badli, Delhi
Through its Chief Manager ............... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. A.K. International,
Through its Prop. Smt. Anita Kaur
Gali No.10, Railway Road,
Samai Pur, Delhi
Also at :
E1/146147, Ground Floor,
Sector16, Rohini, Delhi110085 ...........Defendant
Date of Institution of the Suit : 27.01.2010
Date of Reserving Judgment : 14.01.2013
Date of Judgment : 14.01.2013
J U D G M E N T: 1 This is a suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank for Suit No. 14/10 Vijaya Bank vs. M/s A.K. International 1/4 recovery of Rs.91,022.95 as outstanding dues of overdraft facility. 2 The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 and indulged in banking transactions. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been maintaining the current account with the plaintiff bank and having the temporary over draft facility. It is averred that on 30.03.2009 the defendant took a temporary overdraft facility of Rs.80,000/ which was to be returned by the defendant along with interest. It is further averred that the plaintiff bank has been maintaining the account in the name of the defendant and as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank, a sum of Rs.83.588.95 has been due and outstanding as on 14.08.2009 and that despite the demand notice dated 20.08.2009, the defendant failed to make payment of the said amount. Hence this suit. 3 The defendant was duly served by summons of the suit but no WS was filed on his behalf. Vide order dated 16.07.2011, the defence of the defendant was struck off U/o VIII Rule 1 CPC with limited right to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses. Suit No. 14/10 Vijaya Bank vs. M/s A.K. International 2/4 4 In support of the case, Sh. Saswata Dev, Senior Manager and duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff bank appeared in the witnessbox as PW1. He led evidence on affidavit Ex.PW1/A supporting the averments of the plaint and proved the power of attorney Ex.PW1/1, demand notice dated 20.08.2009 Ex.PW1/2 and the statement of account Ex.PW1/4. Opportunity to cross examine the witness was given to the defendant but the same was not availed of as none has appeared on his behalf.
5 I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
6 The testimony of the PW1 has remained unrebutted, uncontroverted and unchallenged as the defendant has chosen not to file any WS and to cross examine the said witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 which is supported by the documents. In view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents placed and proved on record and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is evident from the record that the suit is well within limitation as per statements of accounts and the plaintiff Suit No. 14/10 Vijaya Bank vs. M/s A.K. International 3/4 has proved a case for the relief claimed against the defendant. 7 Hence the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for a sum of Rs.91,022.95 with costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum till actual realization.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court th Today on this 14 Day of January, 2013.
(SANJAY JINDAL) SCJcumRC (NW): ROHINI :DELHI Suit No. 14/10 Vijaya Bank vs. M/s A.K. International 4/4