Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Limited vs Sh. Naveen Saraswat on 7 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF Ms. GEETANJALI
ADJ 3 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS DJ No. 3512/2017
In the matter of :
ICICI Bank Limited
Having its Registered Office at:
Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara390007
Inter alia having its Branch Office At :
EBlock, 2nd Floor, Videocon Tower,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi 110055 ....PLAINTIFF
VS.
Sh. Naveen Saraswat
S/o Sh. Devdutt Sharma (Borrower)
R/o L3/401, IV Floor,
Gulmohar Garden, Raj Nagar Extension,
Ghaziabad, U.P.201002. ..... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 30.10.2017
Date when reserved for orders : 06.01.2021
Date of Judgment : 07.01.2021
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 7,05,493.97/
EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1.Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose off the suit for recovery of RS. 7,05,493.97/ alongwith interest against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a body incorporated CS DJ No. 3512/2017 Page No. 1 of 5 ICICI Vs. Naveen Saraswat under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and a Banking company under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and is having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara390007 and Branch Office at EBlock, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110055.
3. The present suit has been instituted through Sh. Mohit Grover, who has been duly authorised by way of power of attorney and is competent to file, sign, verify, institute the present suit. It is submitted that defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan for purchasing a vehicle i.e. "MARUIT CIAZ/VDI" and entered into a loan agreement under the loan cum hypothecation scheme. His request was accepted by the plaintiff bank and an amount of Rs. 7,10,000/ was sanctioned by the plaintiff on 30.07.2016. As per the requirement defendants had executed various loan documents as mentioned hereunder :
(i) Credit facility application alongwith terms and conditions of the loan;
(ii) Deed of Hypothecation and
(iii) Irrevocable Power of Attorney.
3.1 It is further submitted that defendant agreed to pay the amount of loan together with interest as per sanction letter in 60 EMIs of Rs.15,884/ each; that loan account was opened with the plaintiff bank in the name of defendant; that after availing the loan facility for purchasing of the aforesaid vehicle, the defendant has paid only 09 CS DJ No. 3512/2017 Page No. 2 of 5 ICICI Vs. Naveen Saraswat EMIs and defaulted in 04 EMIs to the plaintiff bank from installments due on 04.09.2017. Accordingly, plaintiff bank had served the demand notice dated 30.03.2017 for repayment of dues but with no avail. Hence, plaintiff bank has instituted the instant suit for recovery of Rs.7,05,493.97/.
4. The defendant was served through publication in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 17.11.2018 however he neither appeared nor filed the written statement within the stipulated period and hence was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.10.2019. Thereafter, matter was fixed for exparte plaintiff's evidence.
5. In order to prove its case, plaintiff bank has examined Mr. Mohit Grover, AR of plaintiff bank as PW1. He has reiterated the facts of plaint in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of the power of attorney in his favour (Ex. PW1/1 OSR); credit facility loan application alongwith terms and conditions of the loan (Ex. PW1/2); deed of hypothecation (Ex.PW1/3); Irrevocable power of attorney (Ex.PW1/4); copy of notice (Ex.PW1/5) and postal receipts (MarkX); certified copy of statement of account (Ex.PW1/6): certificate under section 2A of the Banker Book Evidence Act, 1891 (Ex.PW1/7) and certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Ex.PW1/8). He was not cross examined by the defendants.
CS DJ No. 3512/2017 Page No. 3 of 56. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and carefully gone through the record.
7. The present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 7,05,493.97/ PW1 has proved his authority to depose vide Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/1(OSR). He has deposed that he is fully conversant with the facts of the case on the basis of record maintained by the bank. The plaintiff has placed on record series of documents executed by defendants at the time of grant of loan. Credit facility loan application alongwith terms and conditions of the loan is Ex.PW1/2, deed of hypothecation is Ex. PW1/3, irrevocable power of attorney is Ex.PW1/4. All the said documents reflects the contract between the parties and sanction of loan which was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.14,354/. PW1 has deposed that defendants have failed to pay the loan installments despite repeated demands. Statements of account is Ex.PW1/6.
8. The suit has been filed within a period of limitation as per the statement of account Ex.PW1/6. PW1 has further proved that legal notice Ex.PW1/5 was given to the defendant for paying the outstanding dues despite that no payment was made. The testimony of PW1 has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. So, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1 and unrebutted and unchallenged documents of loan proved on record by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 3512/2017 Page No. 4 of 59. In view of abovesaid reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants for a sum of Rs.7,05,493.97/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly including the pleader fee. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date: 2021.01.07 Typed to the dictation directly (Geetanjali) 16:24:43 +0530 Corrected and announced Ld. Additional District Judge03 in the open court on this day Central/Tis Hazari Courts 07.01.2021 Delhi/ 07.01.2021 CS DJ No. 3512/2017 Page No. 5 of 5 ICICI Vs. Naveen Saraswat