Delhi District Court
State Bank Of Patiala vs Sh.Ajay Gupta on 21 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL:
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRC (EAST):
KKD COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 100/10
Unique Case Identification No: 02402C0076732010
State Bank of Patiala
A Bank body corporate constituted under the
State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959
having its head office at the Mall, Patiala (Punjab) and
Branch office at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi is one amongst its
branches spread through out India. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh.Ajay Gupta
R/O Sh. Dharam Gupta
R/O H. No. S/492B, Ground Floor,
School Block Shakarpur,
New Delhi110092
Also at : 86 Patel Nagar, New Mandi,
Muzaffar Nagar (UP) ... Defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 18/03/2010
Date when arguments
concluded and case fixed for Orders : 09/02/2011
Date of Order : 21/02/2011
Final Order : Suit Decreed
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal
SCJCumRC:East, Delhi
Suit No. 100/10 Page 1/7
SUIT FOR RECOVERY FOR A SUM OF RS. 2,87,962.98
(RUPEES TWO LACS EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED SIXTY TWO AND PAISA NINTY EIGHT ONLY)
ALONGSWITH INTEREST PENDENTLITE AND FUTURE @
11% PER ANNUM (WITH MONTHLY/ HALF YEARLY RESTS)
J U D G M E N T
1. Plaintiff has filed this Suit with a prayer for a money decree in the sum of Rs.2,87,962.98 inclusive of principal, interest, charges etc. as on 28.02.2009 together with future interest @11% p.a. with monthly rest w.e.f. 01.03.2009 till actual realization in full alongwith cost, charges and expenses in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
2 In brief case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff Bank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India (subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 having its office at The Mall, Patiala (Punjab) and a branch office amongst other places at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. It carries on banking business. It can sue and can be sued. The present suit is being filed by Sh. Ved Prakash Dhamija, Manager SARC, State Bank of Patiala, Delhi, who is conversant with the facts of the case and is competent to institute suit and engage counsel and take all steps for the Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 100/10 Page 2/7 conduct of the case and is also duly authorized by the executive committee of the plaintiff Bank, vide order dated 15th March 1986 (Published in partIII, Section 4 of Gazette of India dated 07.06.1986) to sign, verify plaint, replication, swear affidavits, application etc. and to execute all documents connected with the legal proceedings and to do all acts necessary for the prosecution of the case in this behalf. As alleged, sanction dated 14.11.2009 granted by AGM, R.O.1 (Delhi) as required under the delegation of financial powers has been received.
The plaintiff has alleged that defendant approached plaintiff bank on 27.02.2008 for grant of term loan of Rs.2,40,000/ for purchase of ALTO LXI (Car) and the plaintiff bank after usual verifications acceded to the request of defendant and granted term loan of Rs.2,40,000/ @ 11.25% on 07.03.2008 which was repayable in 60 equated monthly installment of Rs.5,249/ along with agreed rate of interest commencing from April 2008 alongwih interest @ 11.25% per annum with monthly/half yearly rests plus penal interest, interest tax and other charges as per prevailing rates of the plaintiff bank. As alleged, defendant signed requisite documents including hypothecation agreement dated 07.03.2008, letter of arrangement dated 07.03.2008 Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 100/10 Page 3/7 and other loaning documents in favour of plaintiff Bank. Plaintiff has further alleged that from the abovesaid amount the defendant purchased ALTO LXI bearing registration no. DL 5CF 1893 and the said car is hypothecated with plaintiff bank. Plaintiff has alleged that after availing the said loan defendant failed to adhere to the financial disciplines and failed to pay the regular monthly installments in accordance with terms and conditions of hypothecation agreement which resulted in loan account start running irregular and as such same was declared NPA on 28.02.2009. As per plaintiff, after taking into consideration all the debts and credits and making adjustments of the part payments made by defendant and after categorizing the liability into nonperforming assets (NPA) on as on 28.02.2009 total liability of the defendant inclusive of unapplied interest (UAI) till 31.01.2010 is Rs.2,87,962.98 which is found due and payable by the defendant as per statement of accounts maintained in accordance with the accounting procedures being consistently followed by the plaintiff bank and in compliance with instructions of Reserve Bank of India inclusive of interest of Rs.32,719/ which plaintiff bank is also entitled to recover from date of NPA when the said account was declared as Non performing assets till Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 100/10 Page 4/7 31.01.2010 when the amount was transferred to the protested bills accounts. Lastly, as per plaintiff, aggrieved by the failure of the defendant to clear their outstanding amount plaintiff Bank got issued notice dated 06.02.2010 calling upon the defendant to clear their entire outstanding vide courier at his correct addresses but defendant has failed to clear their outstanding. Hence this suit.
3. Vide order dated 19/03/2010 summons for settlement of issues were ordered to be issued to the defendant. The defendant remained unserved for 07/04/10. For 13/05/10 defendant was served through affixation but defendant was proceeded against exparte as none appeared on behalf of the defendant despite matter being called repeatedly since morning. In his exparte evidence plaintiff has examined one witness namely Ved Prakash Dhamija and exparte evidence was closed on 09/12/10 by Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff by making separate statement to that effect.
4. I have heard Sh. Ajay Jasra, Advocate for plaintiff and gone through the case file very carefully.
5. In view of Ex. PW1/1 it can be said that present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff bank by competent person. The original Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 100/10 Page 5/7 application for term loan made by defendant has been produced/proved on judicial file as Ex. PW1/2, hypothecation agreement has been produced as Ex. PW1/4, the arrangement letter as Ex. PW1/3, RC of the Car in question as Mark A, the retail invoice as Mark B, certificate cum policy schedule as Mark C, statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank as Ex. PW1/5 and the notice dated 24/12/02 which was despatched to the defendant vide courier receipts Ex. PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 has been proved as Ex. PW1/6. The statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of business shows an amount of Rs. 2,87,962.98 payable by defendant to plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff stands proved on judicial file by documentary evidence led on judicial file. This court has no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted and unchalleged depositions made by Sh. Ved Prakash Dhamija. Suit is within the period of limitation. This court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in as much as plaintiff is having branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and even the defendant is having his residence within the jurisdiction of this court. In my considered opinion, on the basis of material available on judicial file, suit deserves to be decreed and it is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 100/10 Page 6/7 2,87,962.98 in favour of the plaintiff an against the defendant. Further plaintiff is entitled to pendentlite interest on the amount of Rs. 2,87,962.98 @ 10% per annum from the filing of the suit till the date of decree. Plaintiff is also entitled to future interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in the open court on (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal) 21/02/11 SCJCumRC/East : Delhi Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 100/10 Page 7/7