Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Mr. Afroz Khan on 16 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAN MOHAN SHARMA, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)06, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CS (Commercial) No. 2477/2019
State Bank of India
Thr;ough RACPC Branch
Padam Singh Road Branch
A1/24, near Metro Police Station
Janakpuri, New Delhi110058. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Afroz Khan
S/o Mr. Ashu Khan
R/o 36A, BlockC, Vandana Vihar
near Shiv Gorakkhnath Temple
Village Nangloi,
Delhi110041 .....Defendant no. 1
Mr. Ashu Khan S/o Mr. Jafruddin
R/o 36A, BlockC, Vandana Vihar
near Shiv Gorakhnath Temple
Village Nangloi, Delhi110041. .....Defendant no. 2
Date of Institution : 15.10.2019
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 16.02.2021
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2021
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of ₹ 4,04,591/ (Rupees Four Lakh Four Thousand Five Hundred Ninety One only) CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 1 of 22 against the defendant on 15.10.2019.
Plaintiff's Case
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that it is a body corporate under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The suit has been instituted through its authorized representative Shri Sharad Kishore Srivastava.
3. The defendant approached the plaintiff for grant of a loan for purchase of a vehicle. The plaintiff acceded to the request of the defendant and sanctioned him a loan. The relevant particulars of the credit facility sanctioned by the plaintiff to the defendant are as under:
Date of Loan Application No. 17.08.2013 Account number of the defendant 33220382879 Date of execution of documents 24.08.2013 Make and Model of the vehicle BR10 1.2 VX MT HONDA Registration number of vehicle DL1CQ1921 Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) Rs. 7,576.00 Rate of Interest 10.45% PER ANNUM Number of EMIs 84 Date of Commencement 24.08.2013
4. The defendant executed various documents for a valuable consideration which included
(i). Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 24.08.2013;
(ii). Arrangement Letter dated 24.08.2013;
CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 2 of 22(iii). Vehicle delivery letter dated 24.08.2013.
5. After making certain payments, the defendant defaulted in repayment and therefore, the loan has been recalled vide recall notice dated 16.11.2016 calling upon him to make the payment of amount outstanding. Despite being duly notified the defendant did not come forward to pay the outstanding amount constraining the plaintiff to institute the instant suit.
6. The plaintiff has prayed that the suit be decreed in the sum of ₹4,04,591/(Rupees Four Lakh Four Thousand Five Hundred Ninety One only) with interest @ 9.70 % per annum w.e.f. 15.10.2019 till the realisation of the amount. Cost of the suit has also been prayed for.
Service of the Defendant
7. The process had been sent to defendant and he had been served on 11.02.2020 as recorded in the minutes of proceedings dated 28.08.2020.
8. Despite service the defendant did not cause appearance till date. The defendant also did not file a Written Statement of defence. With the exhaustion of the outer limit of 120 days, the defendant forfeited his right of defence.
Plaintiff's Evidence
9. For leading evidence, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff prayed for dispensing the same relying upon CS(OS) 1213/2011 titled Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Others. versus Satya Infra & Estates Pvt.
CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 3 of 22Ltd. judgment (Date of Judgment 7th February, 2013). Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Sunil Sharma passed in RFA 340/2015 on 31.01.2018 in which the pronouncement has been made regarding appreciation of documentary evidence in cases of public financial institution, appreciation/certification of electronic evidence etc. In the deliberation on the aspect the aspect of dispensing with the presence of a witness the case of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Theodar Laboratories Private Ltd. 2006 (33) PTC 629 Del has also been considered. Vide detailed order dated 19.12.2020, the prayer of the plaintiff had been allowed thereby dispensing with the filing of an affidavit of evidence.
10.No adverse order had been passed against the defendants notwithstanding their absence. The defendants had forfeited their rights by nonappearance, nonfiling of written statement etc. Vide minutes of proceedings dated 23.11.2020, it was noted the notwithstanding the fact that there was no statement of defence on record, the defendants would be entitled to cross examine the plaintiff's witness without putting any defence. However, the defendants did not present themselves to seek any such right.
Arguments
11.I have heard the submissions advanced by Sh. Mukesh Ranjan, ld. counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants did not come forward to CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 4 of 22 address the arguments.
12.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute within the meaning of section 2(c) (i) and other applicable provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
13.On the aspect of the plaint not accompanying with a Statement of Truth the plaintiff was put to a notice regarding noncompliance of Order VI Rule 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under: "15A. Verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 15, every pleading in a commercial dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule. (2) An affidavit under subrule (1) above shall be signed by the party or by one of the parties to the proceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and who is duly authorised by such party or parties.
(3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in subrule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise.
(4) Where a pleading is not verified in the manner provided under subrule (1), the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein.
(5) The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth, namely, the CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 5 of 22 affidavit set out in the Appendix to this Schedule."
14.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that albeit not liable to make this compliance as on the date of institution viz. 14.10.2019, the Commercial Courts had not been constituted in Delhi and the matter was heard on 15.10.2019 by the Court of Additional District Judge. He cited section 6 of the General Clauses Act which deals with the effect of repeal. He also cited section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which deals with transfer of pending cases and submitted that the operation of the various specific compliances of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 cannot be retrospective. He stated that however the compliance of filing a Statement of Truth by the person who has instituted the suit has been done as a matter of abundant caution.
15.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon State Bank of India vs Kashmir Art Printing Press, Sirsa AIR 1981 P H 188, 1983 54 Comp Cas 56 P H) and cited the following: "4.....It is admitted that the State Bank of India was constituted and the State Bank of India so constituted was to be a body corporate with perpetual succession and was to sue and could be sued in that name as provided by Section 3(2) of the Act. According to Section 16(1) of the Act, the Central Office of the State Bank was to be at Bombay, and according to subsection(2) local head offices in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and at such other places in India as the Central Government may provide in consultation with the Central Board. It deserves to be mentioned here that a local head office was constituted at Chandigarh CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 6 of 22 in accordance with Section 16(2) vide notification dated 20th August, 1979, published on 1st September, 1979, in part II of the Gazette of Government of India, page 99. The management of the affairs of the State Bank has been entrusted to the Central Board was to be guided by the directions of the Central Government as required by Section 17. The Central Board was to be guided by the directions of the Central Government as required by section 18. According to section 21 of the Act. Local Boards are to be constituted at places where the State Bank has a local head office, which are to consist of the members mentioned in the section. The 'Local Board' has been defined in Section 2(dd) to mean a Local Board constituted under Section 21.
Section 21B defines the powers of the Local Board in respect of the area served for which local head office is constituted and according to this section. Local Board is to exercise all powers and perform all functions and duties of the State Bank in relation to business of banking and shall also exercise such other powers and perform such other functions and duties as may be conferred on or assigned to it by the Central Board as otherwise prescribed and subject to any other general or special instructions which the Central Board may give from time to time. The net result of the reading of the provision is that for the area under the local head office, the Local Board has full powers to do what the Central Board has. Under Section 30 of the Act, the Central Board has been authorised to constitute an Executive Committee or other Committees and delegate to the Executive Committee or other Committees such powers as the Central Board may consider necessary. This Section deals with the delegation of powers of the Central CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 7 of 22 Board to the Executive Committee or other Committees. Under Section 43(2). The Central Board has been authorised to delegate such powers and duties as it deems proper, to the officers, advisers and employees of the State Bank. Regulations are to be framed under Section 50(2) (m) and (n) provides for the framing of regulations regarding the conduct and defense of legal proceedings and the manner of signing proceeding, besides providing the duties and conduct of the officers, other employees, advisers and agents of the State Bank. Subsection (3) provides that the first regulations are to be made by the Reserve Bank with the previous sanction of the Central Government which shall be the regulations of the Central Board under this provision and shall have force accordingly until they are amended or repealed.
5. In exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, made certain regulations. Regulation 77, which is relevant, deserves to be noticed for the decision of the point involved in these cases and is as follows: "77. Plaints, written statements, petitions, and applications may be signed and verified, affidavits may be sworn or affirmed, bonds may be signed, sealed and delivered, and generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or noncontentious may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank by the Chairman or by any officer or employee empowered by or under Regulations 76 to sign documents for and on behalf of the State Bank".
CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 8 of 22A reading of the aforesaid regulations shows that the plaints, written statements, petitions and applications can be signed and verified and similar other documents including documents connected with legal proceeding could be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank by the Chairman or by an officer or an employee empowered by and under Regulation 76.
6............................................................... I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the State Bank of India. Regulation 77 is quite comprehensive. If the words 'generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or noncontentious may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank ' had not been mentioned in Regulation 77. Something might have been said for the defendants. But the use of the aforesaid words clearly goes to show that the authorised officer has been given power to sign all documents connected with the legal proceedings and one of the documents would be a Wakalatnama which the concerned officer could sign in favour of an Advocate. It cannot be disputed that a Wakalatnama is a document connected with the legal proceedings and when, admittedly, in the present cases, the concerned Branch Managers had executed Wakalatnamas in favour of the counsel who presented the plaints it cannot be said that the presentation of plaints in Courts by the Advocates was not a proper presentation.
.................................................................
9. Even apart from the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the view that the larger authority granted to the Branch Manager to sign the plaints, written statements, petitions and applications and all other documents connected with the legal proceedings, CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 9 of 22 should include the power to file suit, written statements and other documents in Court. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the State Bank of India has Branches all over the country and a special statute, namely, the Act, was framed for its working. The Banking transaction are taken up in every Branch Office and if one were to accept the argument of the defendants, even if suits can be filed within limitation after getting the sanction from the Central Board or the Local Board at least the first appeals, which will lie before the District Judge, would always be time barred because I do not think it would be possible to get instructions from the Central Board or the Local Board to institute an appeal within the period of thirty days."
16. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Bank of India vs Earnest Traders Exporters 1997 IIIAD Delhi 467, 67 (1997) DLT 218, 1997 (41) DRJ 659 and cited as under: "(6). Now I proceed to deal with the issues : Issue No. 1: The plaint has been signed and verified by Shri M.L. Chander, Manager of the plaintiff bank. PW3, Shri D.C. Rai Chandani, Officer, State Bank of India deposed to the effect that all the officers of the Bank who arc posted as Managers/Branch Managers are entitled to sign the plaint. He stated that this entitlement was based on Regulations no. 76 & 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. Regulation 77 needs to be quoted for immediate reference : "77.Plaints, written statements, petitions, and applications may be signed and CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 10 of 22 verified, affidavits may be sworn or affirmed, bonds may be signed, sealed and delivered, and generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or non contentious may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank by the Chairman or by any officer or employee empowered by or under regulation 76 to sign documents for and on behalf of the State Bank.
(7) From a perusal of Regulation 77 it is clear that the plaints and written statements, petitions and applications can be singed and verified by any officer or employee empowered by or under Regulation 76 to sign documents or an on behalf of the State Bank. Under Regulation 76, the power of signing the documents has been conferred on the Vice Chairman, the Managing Director, the Deputy Managing Director, the Chief General Manager and such other officers or employees of the State Bank as the Central Board or the Executive Committee may authorise in this behalf by a notification published in the Gazette of India. Pursuant to powers conferred under Regulation 76, notification dated September 17, 1959 was published in the Government of India Gazette, Part Iii, Section 4, dated September 26, 1959 by virtue of which it authorised "agents" and other persons to sign the documents mentioned in regulation 76. A conjoint reading of Regulations 76 and 77 and the above said notification leaves no manner of doubt that an "agent" would be entitled to sing and verify the pleadings, etc. It may be noted that the "agents" have been redesignated as Branch Managers by virtue of notification dated June 21, 1972 published in the CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 11 of 22 Govt. of India Gazette Part II, Section 4, dated August 26, 1972. This notification came into force w.e.f. September 1, 1972. Thus, any Manager of the plaintiff bank would be fully authorised to sing and verify the pleadings and would also be entitled to institute the legal proceedings, for and on behalf of the bank. In this view I am supported by the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in State Bank of India v. Kashmir Art Printing Press and others, (1983) 54 Comp Cos 56."
17.Reliance has also been placed by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 8 May, 2000 in State Bank of India vs Indian Utility Products and Ors. AIR 2001 Delhi 30 relying as under: "5. Regulation No. 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 provides that the plaints, written statements, petitions and applications may be signed and verified, affidavits may be sworn or affirmed, bonds may be signed, sealed and delivered, and generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or noncontentious may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank by the Chairman or by any officer or employee empowered by or under Regulation 76 to sign documents for and on behalf of the State Bank. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Regulation 76, notification dated 17th September, 1959 was published in the Government of India Gazette, Part III, Section 4 dated 26th September, 1959 by virtue of which besides other persons 'Agents' were authorised to sign the documents CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 12 of 22 mentioned in Regulation 76. Later on, the designation of Agents was redesignated as Branch Managers by virtue of a notification dated 21st June, 1972 published in Government of India Gazette, Part III, Section 4 dated 26th August, 1972 which came into force w.e.f. 1st September, 1972. Thus, w.e.f. 1st September, 1972, a Branch Manager was entitled to sign and verify the pleadings and authorised generally to complete all other documents connected with legal proceedings besides other matters. In the decision in State Bank of India v. Kashmir Article Printing Press, (1983) 54 Com Cas 56 it was held that the use in said Regulation of the words 'generally all other documents connected with legal proceedings whether contentious or noncontentious, may be made and completed on behalf of the State Bank', are quite comprehensive and the authorised officer has been given power to sign all documents connected with legal proceedings and one of such documents would be a Vakalatnama and the presentation of plaints in Court by an advocate in whose favour Vakalatnama has been executed, would be a proper presentation..."
18. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon the authority in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Bharat Bhushan Sharma, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 6 December, 2010 in RFA No. 343/2001, it is relied as under: "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 CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 13 of 22 appellant, can sign and verify the pleadings. It need not be gainsaid and 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: "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 subsection because it is an officer who acts on the instructions of the board and not vice RFA 343/2001 Page 2 of 5 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. This aspect, with respect to the authority to sign and verify the suit by a principal officer has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Travancore 153 (2008) DLT 239 (DB) and in which, it has been held that a principal officer is authorized by virtue of Order 29 Rule 1 CPC not only to sign and verify the pleadings, but CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 14 of 22 also therefore to institute the suit. Paras 23 to 26 of this judgment are relevant and the same read as under:
23. This then is the short issue which needs to be considered by us exercising appellate jurisdiction.
24. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: " 1 . Subscription and verification of pleading. In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading maybe signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case."
25. Discussing Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the decision in United Bank of India's case (supra),in para 10, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule1 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 dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorize any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 15 of 22 and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
26. Suffice would it be to state that in law, the Secretary, Director or a Principal Officer of accompany would be treated as duly authorized to institute suit on behalf of a company. This flows out from a bare reading of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as further explained in the decision in United Bank of India's case."
19.In the light of the above judgment, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the position of the State Bank of India is different from any other corporate entity as it is a statutory authority. He relied upon the notifications dated 27.03.1987 and 31.08.2005 published on 02.05.1987 and 29.10.2005 in the Gazette of India. He states that SBI enjoys special statutory status and rights in contradistinction with other body corporates under a general statue like the Companies Act.
20.It is submitted that the plaintiff is a bank and the record has been maintained by it in ordinary course of its banking business. The documents filed by the plaintiff bank are based upon the records maintained by it in the ordinary course of its banking business and they have remained unchallenged.
21.The averments in the plaint have remained unchallenged and un impugned as the defendant has not come forward to defend the suit despite being duly served. Even a judgment can proceed under CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 16 of 22 Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is within the limitation. There is no legal impediment that the suit cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
Appreciation of Arguments
22.I have considered the submissions.
23.From the arguments and the case law cited before me, it is established that State Bank of India is a creation of a special statute and is thus entitled to the special status as provided under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Thus, the notifications dated 27.03.1987 and 31.08.2005 published on 02.05.1987 and 29.10.2005 respectively in the Gazette of India are relevant in the present case. They do not require any formal proof and a judicial notice of the same can be taken under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
24.On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit is apparently within the provisions of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the transaction, which is subject matter of the suit, is squarely covered by the definition of a commercial dispute within the meaning of section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the Act.
25.The summons which has been sent to the defendant in this case have been the summons for the settlement of issues. The summons did not put the defendant on a caveat that in case of his non appearance the averment in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted. Thus, even when the defendant has not come forward to CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 17 of 22 contest the suit, the plaintiff is still liable to prove its case on pre ponderance of probabilities.
26.The documents filed by the plaintiff are the documents maintained by a bank, created by a statute, in the ordinary course of its banking business. Though the exceptions cannot be ruled out, but generally taking a judicial notice of the banking business, these documents can be considered to be duly executed in due course of the business and capable of binding the parties into a contractual relationship.
27.A civil case proceeds on the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is no denying the fact that nonappearance of defendant cannot be taken as a circumstance against him to draw an inference that it tantamount to an admission of the case of the plaintiff, as there may be thousand and one reasons for his nonappearance, and the Court cannot speculate into the reasons for his nonappearance on some analogy based on certain conjectures and surmises. Yet, it is the settled law that in any trial absolute certainty is a myth and the law has provided for working solution in the form of doctrine of preponderance of probabilities. Placing reliance upon the judgment cited by the plaintiff and on the strength of the pronouncement made therein there is enough room to take the documents tendered by the plaintiff on their face value without any demur.
28.Thus, after going through the plaint, it is clear that the defendants CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 18 of 22 had approached the plaintiff bank and executed various documents i.e. Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 24.08.2013, Arrangement Letter dated 24.08.2013 and Vehicle delivery letter dated 24.08.2013. Thus, they had sought a loan which has been granted by the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. The plaintiff bank acceded to the request and disbursed the loan amount to the defendant. The defendant made various payments but later on failed to adhere to the financial discipline. The various transactions have been recorded in the statement of account, maintained by the plaintiff in the ordinary course of its business. The same being electronic records have been accompanied with certificates under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and the Indian Evidence Act respectively. As such they are admissible without production of the originals or the production of the computer system.
29.The plaintiff has also served a notice dated 16.11.2016 upon the defendants calling upon to clear the outstanding in the account. Due to noncompliance of its terms on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff took legal recourse by filing the instant suit for recovery.
30.The loan has been disbursed on 24.08.2013. The suit has been instituted on 15.10.2019. The defendants had made various payments within the currency of limitation period and thus had extended the same from time to time. The suit is ostensibly not barred by limitation.
CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 19 of 2231.The plaintiff has claimed the suit amount, the components of which have been stated in statement of account. The plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding principal and interest as the same have been occasioned due to the acts and omissions of the defendant and not adhering to the financial discipline. The same flow from the contractual relationship as per the terms and conditions settled and part forming of the loan documents.
32.The plaintiff has claimed pendentelite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of institution of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 9.70% per annum which is the contractual rate of interest and the same appears to be just and proper in the contemporary business milieu, risk factors involved and other attendant circumstances.
33.The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the suit amount claimed with simple interest @ 9.70 percent from the date of institution of suit till the date of passing of this judgment.
34.The interest accrued from the date of suit till the date of decree shall stand capitalized in the principal sum/suit amount. The plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficient court fee accordingly.
35.Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed in terms as stated above.
CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 20 of 22ORDER
36.The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the sum of ₹ 4,04,591/ (Rupees Four Lakh Four Thousand Five Hundred Ninety One only) with simple interest @ 9.70% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 14.10.2019 till realization of the entire amount. The interest accrued from the date of suit viz. 14.10.2019 till the date of decree viz. 16.02.2021 shall stand capitalized in the principal sum/suit amount. The plaintiff shall be liable to pay the further court fee accordingly.
37.The plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suits as well as per the rules. Certificate of counsel fee (if any submitted) be taken into reckoning while computing the costs.
38.Balance Court Fee be deposited by the plaintiff within 30 days of the passing of this judgment. Thereafter the decree shall be drawn accordingly.
Copy of the Judgment
39.In compliance of the provisions of the Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended uptodate by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) a copy of this judgment be issued to all the parties to the dispute through electronic mail, if the particulars of the same have been furnished, or otherwise.
40.This judgment be also uploaded on the website of the Delhi District Court forthwith.
CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 21 of 2241.All pleadings/documents/written arguments etc. filed electronically on the officially email ID of the Court be filed in physical form on record by the respective parties.
42.File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by
Announced
MANMOHAN
MANMOHAN SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2021.02.19
on 16.02.2021 18:08:52 +0530
(Man Mohan Sharma)
District Judge (Commercial Court)06
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 2477/2019 Page 22 of 22