Bangalore District Court
The Catholic Syrian Bank vs Mr.Mohd.Ali @ Vallah on 21 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.27), AT BANGALORE.
PRESENT:SRI. K.S.THIMMANNACHAR, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
XII Addl.CityCivil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Dated: This the 21st Day of June 2016
O.S.No.8540/2014
Plaintiff: The Catholic Syrian Bank
Ltd.,
Yelahanka Branch,
No.1217, Yelahanka New
Town, Bengaluru-560064
Represented by its
Branch Manager
Mr.Soman Eipe
Aged about 55 years,
s/o. late C.J.Edwin.
(By Sri.Subash.M.R.
Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants: 1. Mr.Mohd.Ali @ Vallah,
s/o. Mohd. Ghouse,
aged 52 years,
No.420, Farooq Nagar,
Padarayanapura,
Bengaluru -560026.
2 O.S.No.8540/2014
2. Mr.Mastan Khan,
s/o. Budan Khan,
major in age,
No.126, Sarabande
Palya, BSK 2nd stage,
Bengaluru -560082.
3. Mr.Praveez,
s/o.Mohd. Haneef,
major in age,
No.40, 11th cross,
Padarayanapura,
Bengaluru -560026.
(Defendants- exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 07.11.2014
Nature of the suit : Recovery of Money
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence : 15.06.2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 21.06.2016
Total Duration :Years Months Days
01 07 14
(K.S.THIMMANNACHAR)
XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
3 O.S.No.8540/2014
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant directing them to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,51,140/- together with interest at the rate of 13.75% p.a. compounded monthly from the date of suit till realisation and for costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff is a schedule banking Company having its head office at college Road, Thrissur, Kerala State. It has got a branch in Bengaluru. It is stated that the 1st defendant along with the defendants 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan of Rs.85,000/- for the purpose of purchasing an Autorickshaw on 07.07.2006. As per the request made by the defendant, the plaintiff bank granted a loan of Rs.85,000/- to the 1st defendant on 07.07.2006.
3. It is stated that in consideration of the loan granted to the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant executed Hypothecation Agreement dated.07.07.2006 agreeing to repay the said sum on terms contained therein together with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. to be compounded 4 O.S.No.8540/2014 monthly. It was also agreed by the 1st defendant that the plaintiff will be entitled to charge higher rate of interest then the rates stated above at the sole discretion of the plaintiff as per the directives of the RBI. It is stated that in the said Agreement, the 1st defendant also waived his right to notice of the enhancement of interest. It is stated that the defendants 2 and 3 executed the guarantee Agreement on 07.072006 in favour of the plaintiff guaranteeing the repayment of the above said loan. The 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 have acknowledged their liability by executing separate letters of Revival dtd.20.01.2009, 02.04.2011 and 06.01.2012.
4. It is stated that the 1st defendant was very irregular in the matter of repayment of loan inspite of repeated requests and demands. Therefore, legal notice dated.24.10.2014 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to repay the loan amount. Inspite of that legal notice, the defendants have failed to repay the loan amount. Hence the suit.
5. Suit summons were issued to all the defendants through court and RPAD. The suit summons were unserved. 5 O.S.No.8540/2014 Again suit summons were issued to defendants by RPAD. The RPAD returned unserved. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed I.A. seeking permission to take substitute service by way of affixture. I.A. was allowed. Summons were duly served by affixture. The defendant did not appear before the court. They were placed exparte.
6. The Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. The side of the plaintiff was closed. As already stated, the defendants were placed. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of P.W.1. Hence I accept the oral evidence of P.W.1. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff.
7. The following points arise for my consideration:-
POINTS
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant on the guarantee of defendants 2 and 3 availed loan of Rs.85,000/- from the plaintiff Bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 13.75% p.a. compounded monthly?6 O.S.No.8540/2014
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have failed to repay the loan amount as agreed?
3) What order or decree?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per final order below for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point Nos.1 and 2:- As these points being inter linked with each other, in order to avoid repetition of discussion are taken up together for consideration.
10. P.W.1 has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The defendants though served with the summons, have remained absent. There is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence given by P.W.1. Hence I accept the oral evidence of P.W.1. 7 O.S.No.8540/2014
11. Ex.P1 is the Hypothecation Agreement executed by the 1st defendant. Ex.P2 is the Guarantee Agreement executed by the defendants 2 and 3. Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 are Revival Letters executed by the 1st defendant. Ex.P9 is the copy of the legal notice issued to all the defendants. Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 are the postal receipts to show that Ex.P9 was posted to them by RPAD. Ex.P13 is the Statement of Account.
12. The loan was sanctioned on 7.7.2006. I am satisfied that the 1st defendant has executed Hypothecation Agreement and obtained loan. I am satisfied that the defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the repayment of the loan amount by the 1st defendant.
Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 are the Revival Letters. They are all in time from the date of original loan. I am satisfied that inspite of repeated requests and demands, the defendants have not repaid the loan amount. Hence I am satisfied that the defendants have committed default in repayment of loan. The plaintiff has provide that the 1st defendant obtained loan and defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors. The plaintiff has also proved that the defendants have committed default in repayment of the loan. Hence for the 8 O.S.No.8540/2014 above reasons, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.3:- In the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,51,140/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand One Hundred Forty only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 13.75% p.a. to the plaintiff-
bank from the date of suit to the date of repayment.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 21st day of June 2016.) (K.S.THIMMANNACHAR) XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore 9 O.S.No.8540/2014 A N N E X U R E I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Sri. Somaneipe Defendants' side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P1: Hypothecation Agreement Ex.P2: Guarantee Agreement Ex.P3-P8: Revival Letters (6 in number) Ex.P9: Copy of legal notice Ex.P10-P12: Three postal receipts Ex.P13: Statement of Account
(b) Defendants side : NIL (K.S.THIMMANNACHAR) XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore 10 O.S.No.8540/2014 (Judgment pronounced in open court) Draw a decree accordingly.
XII ACCJ;BANGALORE 11 O.S.No.8540/2014 (Judgment pronounced in open court) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,51,140/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand One Hundred Forty only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 13.75% p.a. to the plaintiff-bank from the date of suit to the date of repayment.
Draw a decree accordingly.
XII ACCJ;BANGALORE