Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Sh. Simarprit Singh Through Legal Heir ... on 16 April, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLWT010049582022
CS (COMM) NO. 393/2022
CANARA BANK
A BODY CORPORATE UNDER THE
BANKING COMPANIES ACT
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING)ACT 1970
HEAD OFFICE AT 112,JC ROAD BANGLORE-560002
BRANCH OFFICE AT JANAKPURI
C-23/24, JANAK CINEMA COMPLEX
JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058
..... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SMT. HARMEEN KAUR
W/O LATE SH. SIMARPRIT SINGH
LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. SIMARPRIT SINGH
FLAT NO.142 &140, CHARAK SADAN,
BLOCK-E, VIKAS PURI, WEST DELHI
NEW DELHI-110018
2. SH. HARISH KUMAR
S/O SH. JAI PRAKASH
HOUSE NO. 3058,
GALI MANDIR WALI/GALI THELEWALI,
ARYA PURA, SUBZI MANDI
NEW DELHI-110007
3. SMT. GEETA PODDAR
W/O LATE SH. SHARAD PODDAR
LEGAL HEIR OF SH. SHARAD PODDAR
FLAT NO.532, NEELKANT APARTMENT
ROHINI, SECTOR-13
NEW DELHI-110085
...... DEFENDANTS
Digitally signed by
CS (Comm) No.393/2022 HEMANI HEMANI
MALHOTRA
CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16
15:07:06 +0530
PAGE NO.1/16
2
Date of institution : 26.05.2022
Date of conclusion of arguments : 26.03.2025
Date of announcement of judgment : 15.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose off the present commercial suit filed by the plaintiff bank against defendants for recovery of Rs.11,54,172.22 alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
2. Brief facts pertaining to the present case as detailed in the plaint are that plaintiff is a corporate body incorporated under The Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act'1970 and engaged in the business of banking and finance under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. It is the case of plaintiff bank that late Sh. Simarprit Singh had approached the erstwhile Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) to avail a personal loan of Rs.12,00,000/- vide loan application dated 29.01.2018 which was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank on 13.02.2018 @ MPLR + 4.85% i.e. 13.3% per annum compounded monthly rest wherein defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) stood as guarantors. Late Sh. Simarprit Singh and defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) accordingly executed requisite documents. The said personal loan of Rs.12,00,000/- was to be repaid by late Sh. Simarprit Singh in 60 monthly installments of Rs.27,498.35 commencing from 31.03.2018.
3. It is a matter of record that the principal borrower Sh. Simarprit Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA CS (Comm) No.393/2022 Date: 2025.04.16 15:07:12 +0530 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.2/16 3 Singh expired on 20.08.2020 and he was survived by his wife Smt. Harmeen Kaur (Defendant no.1) and his daughter. After the death of Sh. Simarprit Singh, defendant no.1 also vide acknowledgment of debt dated 23.12.2020, acknowledged the liability of due amount. Since late Sh. Simarprit Singh and subsequently, his wife Smt. Harmeen Kaur and defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) failed to adhere to the financial discipline, the plaintiff bank declared the account of Late Sh. Simarprit Singh as NPA on 30.03.2021. Despite repeated requests, when Defendant no.1 Smt. Harmeen Kaur, legal heir of Simarprit Singh and defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) failed to regularise the loan account, plaintiff bank issued a notice dated 07.02.2022 to defendants. As claimed by the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 11,26,470.31 became due and payable by the defendants as on 31.01.2022. However, the notice was neither replied to nor complied with. Plaintiff was, thus, after resorting to Pre litigation mediation, constrained to file the present suit for recovery for Rs.11,64,172.22 including interest charged upto 30.04.2022 and further interest from 01.05.2022 @12.10% per annum compounded with monthly rests including simple overdue penal interest @2% per annum compounded with monthly rests till realisation of decreetal amount.
4. On assignment of the suit to this Court, summons of the suit were issued to defendants. On 16.01.2023, learned counsel for defendant nos.2 and 3 appeared and on 14.03.2023 Written Statement alongwith Statement of Truth and Affidavit of Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA CS (Comm) No.393/2022 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:07:18 +0530 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.3/16 4 Admission/Denial were filed on behalf of defendant nos.2 and
3. Since none appeared for defendant no.1 despite service through publication, thus vide order dated 24.05.2023, Smt. Harmeet Kaur, LR of deceased Simarprit Singh/ defendant no.1 was proceeded exparte.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased), the averments of plaintiff were vehemently denied. It was claimed that defendant no.2 was an employee in Compare Infobase Limited and the defendant no.3 (now deceased) was appointed as a Director in the said company. Deceased Sh. Simarprit Singh was the owner of the said company therefore at the time of availing loan, defendant nos.2 and 3 were made to stand as guarantors by him. It was also averred that the company of Sh. Simarprit Singh had also taken CC limit from the plaintiff bank wherein the properties bearing flat no.140 and flat no.142, Charak Sadan, Vikaspuri, New Delhi owned by late Simarprit Singh were mortgaged with the plaintiff bank. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) also very emphatically denied their liability and claimed that value of these two flats were sufficient to cover the CC limit as well as the personal loan amount in the present case. It was further claimed that defendant no.2 had written a letter dated 10.10.2018 to plaintiff bank informing bank that he wanted to withdraw his personal guarantee and therefore, he may be released as guarantor. The said letter was duly received by the plaintiff bank on 15.10.2018 but despite that no action was Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA CS (Comm) No.393/2022 Date: 2025.04.16 15:07:25 +0530 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.4/16 5 taken by the plaintiff bank against deceased Sh. Simarprit Singh. Also, defendant no.2 had filed an application under section 9 of IBC before the NCLT Delhi against M/s Compare Infobase Ltd. as the company of Sh. Simarprit Singh had failed to pay the salary of defendant no.2 besides that of other employees of the company.
6. It was further averred that defendant no.3 also in order to help late Sh. Simarprit Singh had mortgaged his property in the loan availed by M/s Compare Infobase Ltd. Subsequent thereto, defendant no.3 resigned from the post of Director of the company on 13.08.2018 which was accepted on 28.08.2018 by late Sh. Simarprit Singh. Therefore, defendant no.3 (now deceased) paid an amount of Rs.1.68 crores to the plaintiff bank to repay the loan of M/s Compare Infobase Limited and got his property released.
7. Defendant no.3 further claimed that he too intimated plaintiff bank that he wished to withdraw his personal guarantee in the present loan account vide letter dated 31.12.2019 but despite that plaintiff bank did not take any action against late Sh. Simarprit Singh. It was also stated that plaintiff bank several times rescheduled the loan granted to late Sh. Simarprit Singh and no intimation to this effect was ever given to defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased).
8. In the replication, the plaintiff denied the averments of Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 CS (Comm) No.393/2022 15:07:32 +0530 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.5/16 6 defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) and reiterated the contents of the plaint. It was further averred that intimation about the change in terms of the loan was duly given to defendant nos. 2 and 3 who had executed Guarantee Agreements separately.
9. After completion of the pleadings, this Court vide order dated 23.11.2023 framed the following issues :
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.11,64,172.22 from defendant nos.2 and 3 who stood as guarantors for the loan taken by deceased Simarprit Singh (OPP)?
2. Whether defendant no.2 has no liability as guarantor as defendant no.2 had written a letter dated 10.10.2018 to the plaintiff bank withdrawing his guarantee? (OPD-2)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any? If so, at what rate and for which period ? (OPP)
4. Relief
10. However, during the dictation of judgment, it transpired that issue Nos.1 and 2 required amendment. Hence, vide order dated 26.03.2025, the following issues were re-framed:
1. Whether Smt. Harmeet Kaur, defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.11,64,172.22 to plaintiff bank?
(OPP)
2. Whether defendant Nos.2 and defendant No.3 have no liability as guarantors as they had written separate letters dated 10.10.2018 and 31.12.2019 respectively to plaintiff bank withdrawing their guarantee? (OPD-2 and 3)
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by Sh. S.K.Rai, learned counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel CS (Comm) No.393/2022 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.6/16 Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:07:39 +0530 7 for defendant no.2 . I have also perused the entire court record and the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 with utmost care. It is relevant to note that defendant no.3 expired during the trial and his widow Smt. Geeta Poddar was brought on record. However, despite service she failed to appear.
12. In support of its claim, plaintiff bank examined it's AR Sh.
Pardeep Kumar as PW1. PW1/Sh. Pardeep Kumar in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), reiterated the averments made in the plaint and replication and relied upon the following relevant documents:-
1. Copy of GPA/Authority letter in his favour (Ex.PW1/1) (OSR);
2. Non starter report dated 28.4.2022 (Ex.PW1/2);
3. Loan application (Ex.PW1/3, colly) ( running from page nos. 1 to
19);
4. Sanction letter vide reference no.9054 (Ex.PW1/4) ( running into two pages);
5. General Agreement dated 13.2.2018 (Ex.PW1/5) (running into page nos.1 to 12).
6. Guarantee Agreements dated 13.2.2018 signed by defendant nos.2 and 3 (Ex.PW1/5A) (running page nos.1 to 6) and (Ex.PW1/6) ( running page nos.1 to 6) respectively.
7. Pronote dated 13.2.2018 (Ex.PW1/7).
8. The acknowledgment of debt and security letter dated 23.12.2020 (Ex.PW1/8) ( running page nos.1 to 2).
9. The letter dated 23.12.2020 regarding the overdue amount in the loan account (Ex.PW1/9)
10. Demand notice dated 7.2.2022 ( Ex.PW1/10) ( running from page nos.1 to 4).
11. Speed postal receipt (Ex.PW1/11).
12. The statement of account (Ex.PW1/12).
13. Certificate under the Banker's Books of Evidence Act (Ex.PW1/13).
14. Statement of Truth (Ex.PW1/14).
13. Defendant no.2, in support of his averments, himself stepped Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA CS (Comm) No.393/2022 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:07:45 +0530 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.7/16 8 into witness box and examine himself as DW1. In his evidence by way of affidavit, he reiterated his averments made in Written Statement and relied upon following document:
1. The copy of order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Hon'ble NCLT ( Mark A) No evidence was led by Smt. Geeta Poddar widow of Late Sh.
Sharad Poddar / defendant no.3.
14. My issue wise findings are hereasunder:-
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether defendant Nos.2 and defendant No.3 have no liability as guarantors as they had written separate letters dated 10.10.2018 and 31.12.2019 respectively to plaintiff bank withdrawing their guarantee? (OPD-2 and 3) The entire case of the plaintiff hinges upon the liability of guarantors defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 (now deceased) to repay the personal loan availed by late Sh. Simarpreet Singh.
15. The facts which are undisputed and uncontroverted are that late Sh. Simarpreet Singh had availed a personal loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from the erstwhile Syndicate Bank (now plaintiff bank) on 13.02.2018 wherein defendant No.1 Harish Kumar and defendant No.2 Sharad Poddar (now deceased) had stood as guarantors vide Guarantee Agreements dated 13.02.2018 (Ex. PW1/5A and Ex. PW1/6). The defence as set up by defendant No.2/DW1 and defendant No.3 (now deceased) was that since defendant No.2 was an employee of M/s Compare Infobase Ltd.
Digitally signedby HEMANI HEMANI CS (Comm) No.393/2022 MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH 15:07:52 +0530 PAGE NO.8/16 9 in which deceased Simarprit Singh was Managing Director, he had signed the Guarantee Agreement (Ex. PW1/5A) whereby he stood as guarantor in the personal loan availed by late Simparprit Singh. It was also the defence set up by defendant No.2/DW1 that subsequently, he had vide letter dated 10.10.2018 (Ex. PW1/D2) withdrawn his guarantee requesting the bank to release him and to replace his personal guarantee with the personal guarantee of some other person.
16. Similar defence was taken by defendant No.3 (now deceased) that he too had withdrawn his personal guarantee vide letter dated 31.12.2019 (Ex. PW1/D1) which was addressed to the plaintiff bank. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also claimed that the plaintiff bank had several times rescheduled the loan granted to deceased Simarprit Singh and no intimation of the same was given to defendant Nos.2 and 3 (now deceased). Hence, for these reasons, plaintiff was not liable to recover any amount from defendant Nos.2 and 3 (now deceased).
17. During the cross-examination of PW1, learned counsel for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (now deceased) stressed upon the fact that deceased Simarprit Singh on behalf of M/s Compare Infobase Pvt. Ltd., had also availed a loan from the plaintiff bank wherein two properties of deceased Simarprit Singh were mortgaged. Those properties were auctioned to recover the loan amount of M/s Compare Info Base Pvt. Ltd. and even after the auction, sufficient amount was left which could have been adjusted against the personal loan of deceased Simarprit Singh.
Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA
CS (Comm) No.393/2022 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16
15:07:58 +0530
CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH
PAGE NO.9/16
10
In cross examination of PW1, PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that the amount received by auctioning the said flats was more than the liability in other loan account against company and balance could have been adjusted against the present loan. Instead PW1 voluntarily added that liability of the company M/s Compare Info Base Pvt. Ltd. still existed.
18. Learned counsel for defendant no.2 vehemently argued that defendant no.2 and 3 (now deceased) had already intimated the plaintiff bank with respect to their withdrawal of guarantee vide letters Ex.PW1/D2 dated 10.10.2018 and Ex.PW1/D1 dated 31.12.2019 respectively. Therefore, neither defendant no.2 nor the estate of deceased defendant no.3 was liable to pay any amount towards the present loan. The argument of learned counsel for defendant no.2 was vehemently refuted by learned counsel for plaintiff by arguing that unilateral withdrawal of guarantee was of no consequence as the same was never approved by the plaintiff bank.
19. Perusal of Ex.PW1/D1 shows that the defendant no.3 withdrew his personal guarantee given to the bank against the limit of Rs.4 crore to Compare Infobase Limited and hence Ex.PW1/D1 was not sent to plaintiff bank for withdrawal of guarantee with respect to the personal loan availed by deceased Sh. Simarprit Singh in the present case. Even otherwise, clause 12 of Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6 i.e. Guarantee Agreements executed by defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 (now deceased) clearly Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA CS (Comm) No.393/2022 Date: 2025.04.16 15:08:04 +0530 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.10/16 11 shows that if any notice is sent to bank by guarantor revoking the guarantee, it shall come into operation only as and when the Bank accepts and communicates the same in writing to the guarantor. In the instant case, it is not the case of defendant no.2 that bank ever issued any communique / reply to the letters Ex.PW1/D2 accepting the revocation of guarantee by defendant no.2.
20. The second limb of argument of Learned counsel for defendant no.2 was that the plaintiff bank had rescheduled the terms of the loan availed by deceased Sh. Simarprit Singh without issuing any notice to defendant no.2 and 3 and hence by virtue of Section 133 of The Act it was abundantly clear that any variance made in the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, discharges the guarantors defendant nos.2 and 3 as to transactions subsequent to the variance. Hence, defendant no.2 and 3 (now deceased) were not liable to pay the loan amount.
21. I do not find any substance in the argument of leaned counsel for defendant no.2 as the guarantee agreement Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6 were admittedly executed by defendant no.2 and defendant No.3 (now deceased) and the terms and conditions mentioned therein are binding upon them. The bare perusal of clause 8 of Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6 reflects that "The Guarantor, shall not be entitled to any of the rights conferred as surety by Sections 133,134,135,139 and 141 or any other relevant provisions of the India Contract Act'1872". Thus CS (Comm) No.393/2022 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH Digitally signed by HEMANI PAGE NO.11/16 HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:08:10 +0530 12 having executed Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6, neither defendant no.2 nor defendant no.3 (now deceased) can avail the advantage of Section 133 of The Indian Contract Act as they had willingly waived/abandoned their rights as conferred under Section 133 of The Indian Contract Act.
22. Moreover, it is not the case of defendant no.2 and 3 (now deceased) that the aforesaid consent in the guarantee agreement (Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6) had been obtained by the plaintiff bank/creditor from them either fraudulently or that late Simarprit Singh had coerced them or had applied undue influence on them to sign the guarantee agreements.
23. In case titled as MUKESH GUPTA VS SICOM LTD. AIR 2004 BOMBAY 104, (2004) dated11 June, 2003, while waiving right of guarantor in the Guarantee Agreement, it was observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that:
"In the case of Citibank N.A. v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd., differing from the view expressed in Pearl Hosiery Mills case it has been held that it was not necessary for the Legislature to provide words "in the absence of any contract" in Section 133 or Section 135 or Section 141, because section themselves speak of consent of the surety regarding variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, composition with the principal debtor etc. It has been further held that in the absence of words "without the surety's consent" the words "in the absence of any contract to the contrary" would have been surplus. Therefore following the decision of the Privy Council in Hodges v. Delhi and London Bank Ltd. it has been held that the rights conferred on the surety under Sections 133, 135 or 141 of the Act could be waived by specific agreement in a deed of guarantee and as a matter of fact such an agreement would CS (Comm) No.393/2022 Digitally signed CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH HEMANI by HEMANI MALHOTRA PAGE NO.12/16 MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:08:16 +0530 13 amount to consent within the meaning of the aforesaid sections of the Act. This decision has been followed in T. Raju Setty v. Bank of Baroda, and similar is the view taken by the Madras High Court in A.R. Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Travencore National Bank Ltd., AIR 1940 Madras 437. A learned single Judge of this Court (Rane J.) has categorically held in Central Bank of India v. Multi Block Private Ltd., that clauses in the guarantee bond waiving the rights under Chapter VIII of the Contract Act and other clauses for securing loan advanced cannot be said to be violative of the public policy or tainted with immorality. On the other hand the public policy should be that one should not allow to defeat the debt of the creditor.
8. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in Hodges v. Delhi and London Bank Ltd. it is not possible to accept the view expressed by the learned Judges of the Punjab High Court in Pearl Hosiery Mills case. In any event that was a case in which without consent of the surety variations were made in the terms of the original contract. Therefore in view of Section 133 of the Act it was held that the surety stood discharged. Therefore it was not a case in which the point in question was considered. The decision by Wahane J. in the case of Central Bank v. Ali Mohd. that the surety's consent to variation has to be simultaneously with novation does not lay down the correct law. With respect to the learned Judge the view expressed by him runs counter to the decision of the Privy Council in Hodges v. Delhi and London Bank Ltd. Reliance placed by Mr. Dwarkadas on the division bench decision in K. R. Chitguppi Company's case is totally misconceived. In fact that judgment supports the case of the respondent than the appellant. This is clear from the following observations:
"... I do not say that a surety can never anticipate the nature of a future variation and give his consent in anticipation of such variation. But it seems to me that in the present case there is neither a general nor a specific consent to the variation in the terms of the sub-agency. I am therefore of opinion that the lower appellate Court was right in holding that in virtue of the provisions of Section 133 the defendant No. 2 was absolved from liability".CS (Comm) No.393/2022
CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI PAGE NO.13/16 MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:08:23 +0530 14
9. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is clear from the terms of the contract between the parties that the appellant had clearly waived benefits that were available to him under the above referred provisions of the contract and, therefore it is not permissible for the appellant to contend that the surety stood discharged in view of the alleged failure of the respondent to take timely steps to preserve the security or to call for the additional security.
24. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka in case titled as KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. SHRI G.C.LOHIA AND ORS., AIR 2019 KARNATAKA 80.
25. Applying the aforementioned case laws to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that defendant nos.2 and 3 being the Guarantors and executor of Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6, themselves waived their rights under Sections 133,134,135,139 and 141 or any other relevant provisions of the India Contract Act'1872. Accordingly, issue no.2 stands decided against defendant nos.2 and 3 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Findings on issue nos.1 & 3:
1. Whether Smt. Harmeet Kaur, defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.11,64,172.22 to plaintiff bank?
(OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any? If so, at what rate and for which period ? (OPP)
26. Section 128 of The Indian Contract Act specifically provides CS (Comm) No.393/2022 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH Digitally signed by HEMANI PAGE NO.14/16 HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:08:29 +0530 15 that the liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. Since it is admitted case of the parties that deceased Simarprit Singh had availed personal loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from plaintiff bank and after his demise, defendant no.1 Harleen Kaur had vide Ex.PW1/8 acknowledged the debt of Simparit Singh as his legal heir and that defendant nos.2 and 3 (now deceased) had stood as guarantors vide guarantee agreements (Ex.PW1/5A and Ex.PW1/6), not only the estate of deceased Simarprit Singh represented by defendant no.1 but also defendant no.2 and the estate of deceased defendant no.3 (represented by Smt.Geeta Poddar) are severally and jointly liable to repay the loan amount availed by Sh. Simarprit Singh.
27. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that liability of estate of deceased Simarprit Singh represented by defendant no.1, defendant no.2 and estate of defendant no.3 is coextensive and they are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amount i.e. Rs. 11,64,172.22 to the plaintiff bank.
28. So far as rate of interest is concerned, perusal of sanction letter (Ex.PW1/4) and General Agreement (Ex.PW1/5) shows that bank was to charge interest @ 13.3% + 4.85 compounded monthly. However, same appears to be unjust and on the higher side. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that simple interest @ 6% w.e.f. 01.05.2022 till realisation of the decreetal amount shall meet the ends of justice. Order Accordingly.
Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.04.16
CS (Comm) No.393/2022 15:08:36 +0530
CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH
PAGE NO.15/16
16
RELIEF
29. In view of the above discussion, estate of deceased Simarprit Singh represented by defendant no.1, defendant no.2 and estate of defendant no.3 represented by his widow Smt. Geeta Poddar are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.11,64,172.22 to the plaintiff bank with simple interest @ 6% w.e.f. 01.05.2022 till realisation of decreetal amount alongwith cost.
30. Pre Litigation Mediation Fee if any be also added to the cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED Digitally signed by IN OPEN COURT ON : 15th April'2024 HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.16 15:08:43 +0530 (HEMANI MALHOTRA) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM)-02/WEST THC/DELHI @ CS (Comm) No.393/2022 CANARA BANK VS SIMARPRIT SINGH PAGE NO.16/16