Delhi District Court
State Bank Of Patiala vs Ashok Maheshwari on 23 August, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH: CIVIL JUDGE: DELHI
Suit No. M20 of 2005
In the matter of:
State Bank of Patiala
a body corporate constituted under the State Bank
of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 having its Head
office at The Mall, Patiala, Punjab and one of its
Branch Office amongst others at 28, Kasturba Gandhi
Marg, New Delhi (Through its Principal Officer/
Manager Shri Shashi Bhushan at its 28, Kasturba
Gandhi Marg Branch, New Delhi) ...Plaintiff
Versus
1.Ashok Maheshwari
Deputy Director
Railway Board
Ministry of Railways
Rafi Marge, New Delhi
Second Address
R/o B65, Swasthya Vihar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi 92. ...Defendant No. 1
2. Railway Board
Ministry of Railways
Rafi Marg, New Delhi
(Through the Pay & Accounts Officer) ...Defendant No. 2.
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT : 10.08.2004
DATE ON WHICH JUDGEMENT RESERVED:
DATE OF PRONOUCNEMENT OF JUDGEMENT :
JUDGMENT
1 Plaintiff bank, a body corporate engaged in the business of banking has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,74,112.00 against the defendants through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer Shri Arun Kumar who has been duly authorised to institute the present suit and take steps for proceeding with the suit. Briefly stated, facts forming the basis for the filing of the instant suit are discussed as under.
2 Defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff bank seeking grant of personal loan for repairing his house. Considering his request and the confirmation given by defendant No. 2 that loan amount would be repaid after deducting from salary of defendant no. 1, plaintiff bank after its usual verification accepted the request of defendant No. 1 and sanctioned a demand loan for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ under the "Karamchari Karj Suvidha Yojna" on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of arrangement dated 08.10.2001.
3 The loan of Rs. 1,50,000/ was agreed to be repaid in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 5,235/. Rate of interest was agreed to be chargeable at 15.50% p.a. at quarterly rests, subject to change from time to time and "check off" facility was also given by the employer. These terms and conditions were accepted by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in order to secure due repayment of the amount along with contractual interest, incidental costs, charges and expenses etc., executed the following documents.
(a) a demand promissory note dated 08.10.2001 for a sum of Rs.
1,50,000/ carrying the rate of interest at 15.5% p.a. with quarterly rests.
(b) Demand Promissory Note dated 08/10/2001 along with Demand Promissory Note Delivery Letter.
(c) Personal loan agreement dated 08/10/2001, whereby defendant no.1 agreed to repay the loan in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 5,235/ per month along with interest @ 15.50 % per annum at quarterly rests.
(d) A Letter of irrevocable authority to the plaintiff to deduct a sum of Rs, 5235/ every month from the salary account of defendant no.1.
(e) Letter dated 08.10.2001 authorizing the plaintiff bank to disclose or publish his name as defaulter in case he committed default in repaying the loan or repaying the interest.
4 Plaintiff bank alleges that having availed the loan facility, defendant No. 1 did not remain regular towards paying the monthly installments and reminder notices had to be given to the defendant no. 1 on several dates as mentioned in para No. 4 of the plaint, advising him to deposit the monthly installments regularly and also pay the pending installments. As there was no response received from the defendant, so, a legal notice dated 20.09.2003 was sent at the residential address of defendant No. 1. The notice sent at the residential address was received back with the remarks "
unclaimed, intimation delivered" while the other legal notice sent at the official address was received back with the remarks "refused".
5. Plaintiff bank submits that after having sanctioned the demand loan facility to defendant No. 1, a demand loan account was opened in his name in the usual books of account maintained by the plaintiff bank at its Bali Nagar Branch in which all the debit and credits entries were made by the bank in its regular, ordinary and usual course of banking business. The interest accrued at the contractual rate with agreed incidental costs, charges and expenses were debited in the loan account and the part payments made by defendant No. 1 were duly credited. Plaintiff claims that as on 30.09.2002 a sum of Rs. 1,34,791.87 remained due and outstanding against the defendant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 39,000/ has thereafter accrued as interest from 01.10.2002 to 06.08.2004.
6. Accordingly, plaintiff bank has prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,74,112.00 which includes Rs. 1,34,791.87/ up to 30.09.2002 and Rs. 39,321/ as interest from 01.10.2002 up to 06.08.2004. Plaintiff Bank has also prayed for pendentelite and future interest at the contractual rate of 15.50 % per annum with quarterly rests. Plaintiff bank claims that defendant No. 1 being the borrower is liable to pay Rs. 1,74,112/ along with costs, charges etc. with pendentelite and future interest at the contractual rate of 15.50% p.a. with quarterly rests and defendant No. 2 is liable to deduct the dues from the monthly salary payable to defendant No. 1 on the basis of the undertaking given by the office of defendant No. 2.
7. Plaintiff suit was pending at the stage of service of summons upon the defendants but the same was dismissed in default on 11.01.2005. Thereafter application under Order 9 Rule 3 and 4 was filed on 13.01.2005. Notice of the application for restoration of suit was served upon defendant No. 2 who was directed to file his reply. As no reply was filed by defendant no. 2 and none had appeared for defendants, so, plaintiff's suit was restored on 25.06.2006. Thereafter defendant No. 1 was served with the summons and he was served on both ways on 05.08.2006. V/K has been filed on behalf of the counsel for defendant No. 1 on 09.01.2007, however thereafter none appeared for the defendants. By the order dated 14.12.2008 this court recorded that on the last several dates defendants had not appeared and had not filed their written statements. Accordingly, defendants were proceeded exparte and their right to file Written Statement was closed. Plaintiff was directed to lead its exparte evidence on 03.07.2008.
8. To prove its case, plaintiff bank examined Sh. Rajes Kumar Mittal Field Officer State Bank of Patiala, Bali Nagar Branch, Delhi as PW1. Plaintiff's witness has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex PW1. In his evidence deposed through affidavit the witness has reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and testified on same lines as disclosed in the plaint. Plaintiff's witness besides tendering his evidence on oath has also exhibited and proved the following documents.
S.No. EX PARTICULARS
1 ExPW1/1 Original Loan Application dt. 08.10.2001
2 ExPW1/2 Original Letter of Arrangement Dt. 08.10.2001
3 ExPW1/3 Demand Promissory Note dated 08/10/2002.
4 ExPW1/4 D.P Note and continuity Letter dated 08/10/2001.
5 ExPW1/5 Personal Loan Agreement dated 08/10/2001.
6 ExPW1/6 Photocopy of letter of irrevocable authority dated
08.10.2001
7 ExPW1/7 Photocopy of undertaking of defendant No. 2 certifying
defendant no.1 as its employee.
8 ExPW1/8 Letter dt. 08.10.2001 issued by defendant No. 1
9 ExPW1/9to12 Photocopied of letters dt. 29.04.2002, 05.06.2002,
18.07.2002 and 31.07.2002.
10 ExPW1/13 to 16. Photocopies of letters dt. 12.08.2002, 18.09.2002, 02.12.2002, 11.03.2003 and 28.04.2003 11 ExPW1/17 to 20 Office copy of legal notice dated 20/09/2003, postal receipts, envelops and certificates of posting 12 ExPW1/21 Original Statement of Account.
9. As defendants have remained exparte and have not cross examined plaintiff's witness, so the evidence led by the plaintiff bank has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and the same is deemed to have been admitted. From the unassailed testimony of plaintiff's witness it is amply clear that defendant no.1 had indeed taken the loan and has failed to discharge his obligation to repay it. Having availed the loan, defendant no. 1 is liable to repay the amount remaining due against him along with the interest charged by the bank as per the contract entered between the parties. The statement of Account i.e. Ex PW1/21 has been successfully proved by the plaintiff bank according to which a sum of Rs. 1,74,112/ remains outstanding against defendant No.1 as upto 06.08.2004. Thus, defendant no.1 is liable to repay the sum of Rs. 1,74,112.00 as claimed by the plaintiff bank in the instant suit. Though the plaintiff has impleaded the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rafi Marg, New Delhi through the Pay and Accounts Officer, as defendant No. 2 and has prayed for directing defendant no. 2 to deduct 1/3rd salary of defendant No. 1 to repay the loan amount along with costs, interest and charges, but no such directions can be given at this stage to defendant No. 2 as plaintiff has to seek such directions against defendant n No. 2in execution proceedings ad defendant No. 2 is neither a necessary nor proper party in the present suit.
10 Accordingly, this suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1,74,112.00 as prayed in the suit. Plaintiff bank is also entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 10 % per annum along with the cost of the suit.
11 Decree Sheet be prepared and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TARUN YOGESH ON 23/08/2008 CIVIL JUDGE/DELHI