Delhi District Court
Bank Of Baroda vs Kavita on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN : DISTRICT
JUDGE-05, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 218/2020
CNR No. DLSW010048832018
IN THE MATTER OF :
Bank of Baroda,
Head office at Baroda Bhavan,
R.C. Dutt, Road, Alkapuri,
Baroda 39007
(Gujarat State)
Dwarka Branch, at Plot no. 43,
Sector 12b, Dwarka,
New Delhi 11007(erstwhile Dena Bank,
Dwarka Branch) .....Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Kavita,
Prop of M/s. Kavita Tour & Travels,
R/o. Plot No. 8, 3-125/3, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 27, Bharat Vihar, Rajapuri Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 ....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 26.02.2018
Date of Final Arguments : 03.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 10.07.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 6,04,507.50/- (RUPEES SIX LACS
FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN AND FIFTY PAISE SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
by SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2025.07.10
17:04:58 +0530
CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 1 of 13
ONLY) /- ALONG WITH PENDENTE-LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST @ 11.25% PER ANNUM
JUDGMENT :
1. Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only) against the defendant with the following relief:
a) Pass a decree of Rs. 6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only) in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant on the grounds stated in the plaint;
(b) Allow the cost of the suit and other expenses incurred by the plaintiff bank;
(c) Award pendent-lite and future interest at the rate of 11.25% per annum from 26.10.2016 till the actual realization of the decretal amount;
(d) Pass such other or future orders as this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present suit in favour the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. It is averred that, the plaintiff i.e. erstwhile Dena Bank is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the banking companies (acquisition & transfer of undertaking) act 1970, and having its head office at Dena Corporate Centre, C 10: G Block: Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 and one its local regional office at 6th Floor, Konnectus Tower-I, Bhavbhuti Marg, Opposite New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi- 110001. It has its branches through out India and one such branch is Dwarka SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 2 of 13 Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:08 +0530 Branch, situated at Plot no. 43, Sector 12B, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.
3. It is averred that the defendant as proprietor of M/S. Kavita Tour & Travels approached and requested to the plaintiff bank for grant of a term Loan of Rs.7,00,000.00/- (Rupees Seven Lacs for purchasing a New Maruti Suzuki, Ertiga, VDI Commercial (white) from M/s. Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd. Under Priority Sector/ Small Road Transport Operator Scheme and also submitted the loan application on dated 17.08.2015 duly signed by them alongwith other requisite documents/ information with plaintiff bank.
4. It is averred that the plaintiff bank examined the proposal of the defendant and found it feasible to sanction a Term Loan and the plaintiff bank granted /sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) under Priority Sector / Small Road Transport Operator Scheme to defendant for purchase a New Maruti Suzuki Ertiga VDI Commercial (white) from M/S. Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd. vide sanction letter bearing Ref. Letter DB/DW/SRTO/KAVITA/2/2015-16 dated 28.08.2015 with various terms and conditions and the above said term loan bears the interest at the rate of 11.55% per annum (at the time of sanctioned the loan) with quarterly rest subject to variation & directions issued by Reserve Bank of India or head office of the bank from time to time.
5. It is averred that the defendant as proprietor of M/s. Kavita Tour & Travel also agreed with the terms & conditions of the sanction of the said Term Loan /vehicle loan and also accepted the terms and conditions of the said sanctioned letter dated 28.08.2015 and in consideration of the aforesaid Term Loan facility of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Only), the defendant as proprietor of M/S. Kavita Tour & Travel executed, signed and delivered the requisite documents i.e. (1) agreement of Hypothecation (to SHILPI Secure Motor M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 3 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:15 +0530 Trucks and other Transport Vehicles with Spares Accessories, Tools etc.) for Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs Only), (2) General Letter of lien and set- off for borrowing arrangements from the borrower, (3) Consent of the Borrower/s and other relevant documents on dated 28.08.2015 in favour of the plaintiff bank in consideration of the above mentioned sanctioned term loan facility duly signed by the defendant as proprietor of M/S. Kavita Tour & Travels. After executing the aforesaid loan documents, the defendant as proprietor of M/S. Kavita Tour & Travel enjoyed the aforesaid loan facility granted to them by the plaintiff bank vide loan account no. 117554031023. The defendant also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 11.90% per annum (as per letter dated 19.04.2016 for Modification of interest rate) with quarterly rest subject to variation & directions issued by Reserve Bank of India or head office of the bank from time to time. The defendant as proprietor of M/S. Kavita Tour & Travel also agreed to re-pay the aforesaid loan amount alongwith agreed rate of interest and other charges as per terms & conditions of agreement / sanction letter.
6. It is averred the defendants also purchased the above said car vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Ertiga VDI Commercial (white) bearing Regn. No. DL 1Z5066 from M/S. Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd. and the defendant also agreed to operate the said loan account as per the terms & conditions of the agreement and norms of the bank.
7. It is averred that the defendant has availed the aforesaid vehicle loan facility / Term Loan Facility, but did not adhere the financial discipline of the bank. The defendant also did not operate the aforesaid term loan/ vehicle loan account i.e. 117554031023 as per the agreement and the norms of the plaintiff bank. The defendant had deliberately failed and willfully neglected to SHILPI M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:23 +0530 pay the installment / outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank dispite of repeated requests and reminders both verbal and in writing. The defendant was most irregular in paying the installments as agreed under in paying the the terms and conditions of the aforesaid term loan facility granted to them. The plaintiff bank send various reminders to the defendants regarding the installment & outstanding, but the defendant did not pay any serious attention to it. The defendant has lastly deposited through NEFT a sum of Rs. 15415/- in his loan account on dated 02.02.2017.
8. It is averred that, the plaintiff bank send various letters /reminders (letter dated 18.08.2016 and 18.09.2017 in respect of the overdue amount / outstanding / installments to the defendant and the plaintiff bank also reminded to the defendant by telephonic regarding the said over due outstanding / installments and also requested to deposit the same in aforesaid term loan/vehicle loan account. The defendant has also agreed and promised so many times to the plaintiff bank in verbal outstanding installment (s) or as to deposit the total overdue soon as outstanding possible in the aforesaid term loan / vehicle loan account and further, the defendant also promised to deposit the overdue amount and installment (s) vide letter dated 20.01.2017, 10.03.2017, 16.05.2017, 09.06.2017 and 02.08.2017 respectively.
9. It is further averred that, despite of repeated assurances of the defendant in verbal to clear / deposit the total outstanding / overdue outstanding / installments, but they failed to pay deposit the outstanding / installments in her vehicle loan / term loan account. Hence, the plaintiff bank finally issued legal notice of demand to the defendant on dated 26.09.2017 but the defendant deliberately failed and willfully neglected to pay/deposit the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank. Hence the plaintiff bank has no option but to file the present suit before this Hon'ble court.
SHILPI M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 5 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:31 +0530
10. It is further averred that now the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,04,507.50 (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paisa Only) together with uncharged interest from 26.10.2016 and also future interest and other usual charges till the final realization of the entire suit amount at the present rate of interest i.e. 11.25% per annum with monthly rest and costs thereon to the Plaintiff bank, which the defendant are liable to pay.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT
11. In her WS, defendant stated that the plaintiff has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant is not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only). The plaintiff has failed to show and disclose as to how the said amount is liable to be recovered from the defendant.
12. It is further stated that, defendant had obtained term loan from the plaintiff bank and at the time of grant of loan, the bank officials got the signatures of the defendant on various blank and printed papers and they were not allowed to either go through the contents of the said documents and even the defendant were not supplied the copies of the documents. That the suit of the plaintiff is also not maintainable as the plaintiff bank has made false grounds and averments in the plaint.
13. It is further stated that, plaintiff's bank on the basis of false and frivolous and including interest and over interest on the amount due filed the present suit in order to illegally recover the said amount from the defendant SHILPI M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:37 +0530 despite the fact that the defendant are not liable to pay any such amount to the plaintiff bank. Even the plaintiff bank has illegally charged/ imposed various other penalty which were never agreed by the defendant.
14. It is further stated that the plaintiff on the basis of wrong calculation and after imposition of penalty and other hidden charges filled the present case on the basis of false and frivolous facts.
15. It is stated that, defendants never executed the alleged document of loan such as agreement of education loan as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was only made to sign on various papers (blank and printed), however, the copy of the same were not supply nor the plaintiff was allowed to read the contents thereof. As such, if there is any such document, the same are not binding upon the defendant in any manner.
16. It is stated that, the plaintiff has failed to adjust the amount already paid by the defendant. The plaintiff has wrongly charged the higher rate of interest other than which was agreed upon by the defendant and they have also included the hidden charges and penalty etc. As such the suit for a sum of Rs. 6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only) is not liable by the defendant and the suit is thus liable to be dismissed.
17. It is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is against the norms and guidelines of the R.B.I. as well as against the settled preposition of law of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme court of India.. He denied the contents of the plaint of plaintiff in his para wise reply .
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 7 of 13 JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:44 +0530
18. Replication to the written statement of defendants was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, thereby, reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES :
19. From the pleadings of parties, following issues are framed vide order dated 19.02.2019:-
i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.
6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only)? OPP
ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
iii) Whether loan documents were not executed by defendant and her signatures were obtained upon blank and printed papers without going through the contents? OPD
iv) Relief.
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES
20. In support of his case, plaintiff Gaurav Dutt Parashar, S/o Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dwarka Branch, Plot No. 43, Sector 12 B, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078, examined himself and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon following documents:
SL. PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS/MARK NO.
1. Certified copy of Board Resolution dt. Ex. PW1/1 14.11.2017 (along with certificate u/s. 61 & 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)
2. Copy of gazette notification dt. Mark A 02.01.2019
3. Copy of loan application form Ex, PW1/2 (OSR)
4. Copy of Sanction letter dt. 28.08.2015 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR)
5. Copy of agreement of hyphothecation dt. Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) SHILPI M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:05:50 +0530 28.08.2015
6. Copy of general letter of lien dt. Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) 28.08.2015.
7. Copy of consent of the borrower dt. Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) 28.08.2015
8. Copy of declaration dt. 28.08.2015 Ex. PW1/7 (OSR)
9. Copy of request for disbursement dt. Mark E de-exhibited as 28.08.2015 Ex. PW1/8
10. Copy of letter dt. 19.04.2016 Ex. PW1/9 (OSR)
11. Copy of RC Mark C (de-exhibited as Ex. PW1/10)
12. Office copy of notice dt. 18.08.2016 Ex. PW1/11 (OSR)
13. Copy of letter dt. 20.01.2017 Ex. PW1/12 (OSR)
14. Copy of letter dt. 10.03.2017 Ex. PW1/13 (OSR)
15. Copy of letter dt. 16.05.2017 Ex. PW1/14 (OSR)
16. Copy of letter dt. 02.08.2017 Ex. PW1/15 (OSR)
17. Copy of notice dt. 18.09.2017 Ex. PW1/16 (OSR)
18. Office copy of legal notice dt. Mark D (De-exhibited 26.09.2017 as Ex. PW1/17)
19. Copy of power of attorney Mark B
20. Statement of account Ex. PW1/19
21. Cross-examination of PW-1 is nil as defendant failed to do so. No evidence led by defendant as she chosen to remain absent. Thereafter, final argument heard.
ISSUE-WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
Issue (i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.
6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only)? OPP Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN M M Date:
JAIN 2025.07.10 17:06:05 +0530 CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 9 of 13 Issue (iii) Whether loan documents were not executed by defendant and her signatures were obtained upon blank and printed papers without going through the contents? OPD
22. Since both issues are interlinked hence taken simultaneously. In present suit plaintiff is seeking recovery of dues of Rs. 6,04,507.50/- along with interest towards term loan as granted to the defendant. In her WS defendant duly acknowledged the receipt of term loan, however, disputed any liability. Contention of defendant is two-fold. Firstly, at the time of granting of term loan plaintiff took signature of defendant on various blank and printed papers and copy of the same were never provided to the defendant hence, not binding upon him. Secondly, plaintiff's bank imposed several penalties, hidden charges and higher rate of interest in violation of RBI Guidelines. However, except making above bold submission no material placed on record to justify his statement.
23. It is well settled law that, burden to proving facts raised upon the party which substantially asserts the affirmation of the issue. In the matter of Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :
"8. The initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Sec- tion 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:
"101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
9. In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it. The said rule may not SHILPI be universal in its application and there may be an exception M JAIN thereto. The learned trial court and the High Court pro-
Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:06:11 +0530CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 10 of 13 ceeded on the basis that the defendant was in a dominating position and there had been a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The appellant in his written statement denied and disputed the said averments made in the plaint.
XXXXXX
15. Section 111 of the Evidence Act will apply when the bona fides of a transaction is in question but not when the real na- ture thereof is in question. The words "active confidence"
in- dicate that the relationship between the parties must be such that one is bound to protect the interests of the other.
XXXXXXX
19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways:
(i) to indicate 9 the duty of bringing forward evidence in sup- port of a proposition at the beginning or later, (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evi- dence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same."
24. In discharge of its onus plaintiff relied upon loan application, sanction letter, agreement of hypothecation and general letter of lien, consent of borrower, declaration and request for disbursement as Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/7. Perusal of Ex. PW1/3 reveals that term loan of Rs. 7 lac was granted to defendant at interest of Rs. 11.55% for 60 months i.e. to be paid in monthly instalment of Rs. 15,415/-. Record further reveals that in terms of loan agreement one Maruti car VDI commercial was given for hypothecation. During the course of argument Ld. Counsel SHILPI M JAIN CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.07.10 17:06:18 +0530 for plaintiff strongly relied upon various letters written by defendant to plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW1/12 to Ex. PW1/15 wherein defendant sought time to pay the EMI but failed to do so. To justify suit amount Ld. Counsel for plaintiff also relied upon statement i.e. Ex. PW1/19 which shows that the due balance of Rs. 6,04.507.50/-.
25. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court plaintiff duly discharged its onus to show the liability of defendant and thereafter onus shifted to defendant to show that she was compelled to sign on blank documents and wrongly charged interest, penalty. But no material placed on record to revert the claim made by plaintiff in fact entire WS seem to be evasive. Although defendant duly admitted the receipt of term loan but failed to specify/quantify the same. WS also kept silence on the point of repayment and due as on date. Thus, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
26. In present matter plaintiff is seeking interest on the due amount at the rate of 11.25%. P.A. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for plaintiff relied upon the loan agreement i.e. Ex. PW1/3. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case this issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff as plaintiff found entitled for simple pendent-lite and future interest @11.25% P.A. on decretal amount from institution of present suit till actual realization.
Issue No. iv) Relief (Conclusion)
SHILPI
M JAIN
27. In view of above discussion, plaintiff is held entitled to a Digitally signed
by SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2025.07.10
17:06:26 +0530
CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 12 of 13
money decree of Rs. 6,04,507.50/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Five Hundred Seven and Fifty Paise Only). Plaintiff shall also be entitled for pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 11.25% P.A. on decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit till its actual realization. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
28. Decree sheet shall be prepared.
29. File be consigned to Records after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI M
Announced in open court M
JAIN
Date:
on 10.07.2025. JAIN 2025.07.10
17:06:35
+0530
(SHILPI M JAIN)
DISTRICT JUDGE-05
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 218/2019 Bank of Baroda Vs. Kavita. Page No. 13 of 13