Delhi District Court
Yogesh Chand Gupta vs M/S Sbi Cards And Payment Services ... on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MILAN GOEL: CIVIL JUDGE - 08
(CENTRAL), ROOM NO.283, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO: 622/2024
CNR NO. DLCT030022582024
IN THE MATTER OF: -
YOGESH CHAND GUPTA
AT: 4070, KASERU WALAN,
PAHARGANJ, DELHI-110055
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S SBI CARDS & PAYMENT SERVICES LIMITED
AT: UNIT 401 & 402, 4TH FLOOR,
AGGARWAL MILLENNIUM TOWER,
E 1,2,3, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
WAZIRPUR, NEW DELHI-110034
...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 22.03.2024
Date of judgment : 23.12.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT PERPETUAL
PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION
E X - PAR T E J U D G M E N T
CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 1 of 10
1.Vide this judgment, I shall decide a suit for permanent perpetual pro- hibitory injunction.
2. Brief Facts are that the plaintiff is a senior citizen, a retired government employee, and an enrolled Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. It is averred that the plaintiff enjoys a respectable standing in society and has an unblemished reputation among his peers, colleagues, and family members.
3. The defendant is a Non-Banking Finance Company, duly registered un- der the Companies Act, and is engaged in the business of issuing credit cards to its customers.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had obtained a credit card facility from the defendant around the year 2000 bearing Credit Card Account No. 0004006661013667717 and had regularly made payments as demanded by the defendant.
5. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the said credit card account was fully settled and closed in the year 2004, after payment of the entire outstanding amount to the collection agents of the defendant, who at that CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 2 of 10 time used to collect payments physically. After the closure of the account, the plaintiff did not receive any demand, notice, or intimation from the defendant for nearly two decades.
6. It is further pleaded that in April 2022, the plaintiff was shocked to re-
ceive a letter dated 16.04.2022 from the defendant, demanding an amount of ₹6,47,507/- and intimating that arbitration proceedings had been uni - laterally invoked against the plaintiff in respect of the alleged dues per- taining to the year 2004.
7. The plaintiff replied to the said notice, denying any liability and object-
ing to the alleged claim. However, the defendant unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator and initiated arbitration proceedings.
8. The plaintiff appeared before the learned Sole Arbitrator and challenged both the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator as well as the maintain- ability of the claim on the ground of limitation.
9. Vide order dated 20.07.2022, the learned Sole Arbitrator dismissed the claim of the defendant, holding the same to be hopelessly barred by limi- tation.
10. Despite the dismissal of its claim, the defendant again issued a notice dated 05.02.2024, received by the plaintiff on 28.02.2024 and again on CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 3 of 10 11.03.2024, demanding a sum of ₹4,27,898/- in respect of the same credit card account. It is further averred that on 18.03.2024, at about 01:00 PM, three persons entered the premises of the plaintiff claiming themselves to be agents of the defendant and demanded payment of the aforementioned amount. When the plaintiff asked them to produce their identity proof, they began to abuse him and physically manhandle him.
11. Aggrieved by the repeated and allegedly groundless threats of recovery, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for perpetual permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and their accomplices, agents or associates from issuing groundless threat of legal action by way of notices / letters against the plaintiff with respect to credit card account no. 0004006661013667717 as well as to restrain the defendant/accom- plices/agents/associates from entering the property of the plaintiff without any authority of law.
12. The summons of the suit were issued to the defendant, which were duly served upon its Assistant Manager on 05.04.2024. The defendant has filed written statement in this case, however, since the same was filed af- ter the stipulated period and no application seeking condonation of delay was filed, therefore, vide order dated 14.02.2025, the right of the defen- CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 4 of 10 dant to file written statement was closed and the written statement was not taken on the record. Thereafter, since the defendant did not appear, it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.07.2025.
13. As per Order 8 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in ab-
sence of any denial of allegations in the plaint by the defendant, the Court shall presume the facts to be admitted. Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act states that a fact admitted even by way of any rule of pleading need not be proved. However, both the provisions empower the Court to require the admitted facts to be proved, whether admitted expressly or impliedly. Order 8 Rule 5 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is similar to Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, Order 8 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with power of Court in total absence of written statement also leaves it to the discretion of the Court whether to pronounce judgment or make such other order as the court deems fit.
14. In Balraj Taneja & Anr v. Sunil Madan & Anr [(1999) 8 SCC 396], in the context of Section 58 and Order 8 Rule 5, it was held by the Hon'ble SC that: -
" A court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically."
In exercise of the above powers and as a matter of caution, this Court CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 5 of 10 had required the plaintiff to prove its case through evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
15. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence, which was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:
S No. Document Description Exhibit
1. Photocopy of the identity proof Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
2. Notice dt. 05.02.2024 issued by the de- Ex. PW-1/2
fendant
3. Envelopes of notices issued by defendant Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly)
4. Copy of Order dt. 20.07.2022 passed by Mark-A
sole Arbitrator
5. Notice dt. 16.04.2022 issued by defen- Ex. PW-1/5
dant
16. PW-1 was duly examined and discharged. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed on 17.09.2025.
17. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record.
18. The plaintiff has primarily relied upon the document Ex. PW-1/2, CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 6 of 10 wherein in Clause 7 it is stated that "Please note that the offence under Section 420 IPC attracts prosecution and the offence is cognizable i.e. arrest without warrant and is non-bailable. Further, in case of conviction, the person can be liable for both imprisonment and fine thereof." The plaintiff has further relied upon the order dated 20.07.2022, marked as Mark-A, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, wherein the claim of the defendant was held to be non-maintainable as being barred by the law of limitation. The testimony of PW-1 has remained wholly unrebutted and unchallenged due to the absence of the defendant from the proceedings. In ex-parte matters, the Court is entitled to rely upon such uncontroverted evidence, provided the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by documentary material. Upon careful scrutiny, this Court finds that the version of the plaintiff is consistent, cogent, and duly supported by the documents placed on record. The notices issued by the defendant in the years 2022 and 2024 clearly pertain to an alleged credit card liability arising out of transactions of the year 2004 or earlier. Most significantly, the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, who was appointed unilaterally by the defendant itself, categorically holds that the claim raised by the defendant is hopelessly barred by limitation. There is CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 7 of 10 nothing on record to show that the said order has been set aside or stayed by any competent court. Consequently, the finding regarding limitation has attained finality and binds the defendant. Once a claim has been ad- judicated to be barred by limitation, the creditor is legally precluded from reviving or enforcing the same indirectly by repeatedly issuing demand notices or extending threats of recovery, as such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
19. The law of limitation is founded upon sound public policy. It is intended to bring certainty and finality to legal claims and to protect individuals from being vexed by stale and belated demands after an unreasonable lapse of time. The plaintiff, being a senior citizen, cannot be compelled to repeatedly defend himself against claims which are ex facie barred by limitation and which have already been rejected in arbitral proceedings.
20. The continued conduct of the defendant gives rise to a reasonable ap- prehension of further harassment and unlawful interference with the peaceful life and enjoyment of property by the plaintiff. In these cir- cumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has, CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 8 of 10 therefore, successfully established a clear legal right requiring protection from such unlawful conduct. However, it is clarified that the present findings shall not preclude the defendant from taking recourse to any criminal remedy, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law.
21. Accordingly, the facts of the present case warrant the grant of a perma- nent and perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, servants, or representatives from unlawfully entering upon the plaintiff's property or from taking any coercive steps against him with- out due authority of law. It is, however, clarified that this Court is not expressing any opinion with respect to actions, if any, taken by the de- fendant strictly within the four corners of law. Nevertheless, the defen- dant shall not be permitted to act arbitrarily or without authority from a competent forum.
22. Now, coming to the other relief(s) sought by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant from issuing groundless threats of legal action by way of notices or letters without authority of law. In this regard, this Court is of the view that the CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 9 of 10 first relief sought cannot be granted, as it would amount to a blanket in- junction in favour of the plaintiff. Whether a particular notice or letter constitutes a groundless threat is a matter that would require examination of its contents and circumstances, and cannot be pre-emptively restrained by a general prohibitory order.
23. Accordingly, the present matter is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff only to the the aspect that defendant, its agents, servants, accomplices or rep- resentatives are restrained from entering into the property of the Plaintiff unlawfully or without the order of competent authority.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
25. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedby MILAN
MILAN GOEL
Date:
(This judgment contains 10 pages
GOEL 2025.12.23
16:10:29
and each page has been signed by me.) +0530
Announced in the open court (MILAN GOEL)
on 23.12.2025 Civil Judge - 08 (Central)
THC/Delhi
CS SCJ No.622/2024 Yogesh Chand Gupta Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Pg. 10 of 10