Delhi District Court
Union Bank Of India vs . Bablu Yadav on 5 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHITRANSHI ARORA ,
CIVIL JUDGE-03, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS SCJ 936/21
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV
In the matter of: -
Union Bank of India
A body corporate constituted under Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970
Having its head office at Union Bank Bhawan,
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021, Maharashtra and
A Branch Office at amongst other places at:
RZ-26, Roshan Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi ................Plaintiff
Vs.
Bablu Yadav,
C/o Dablu Kumar,
S/o Sh. Triveni Prasad Singh,
R/o H. no. 26-A, Gemini Park,
Nangli, Sakrawati Village,
New Delhi-110043 .............Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Date of institution of the suit : 16.09.2021
Judgment reserved on : 03.06.2023
Date of judgment : 05.06.2023
CS SCJ 936/21
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV
Page No. 1 of 9
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs. 31,268/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Eight only) along with interest, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT: -
2. Plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970, having its head office at Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, Maharashtra and a Branch Office at amongst other places at RZ-26, Roshan Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan for purchase of E-rickshaw. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna vide sanction letter dated 01.07.2017. Thereafter, the defendant executed various security loan documents and assured regular payment. The loan was disbursed in the account of the defendant. The defendant submitted tax invoices of E-Rickshaw to the plaintiff bank. Demand Promissory Note dated 01.07.2017, SD-23-A dated 02.06.2018, Letter of Continuity AD-09(M), SD-24 Interest Agreement dated CS SCJ 936/21 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 2 of 9 01.07.2017, Letter of undertaking from Borrowers dated 01.07.2017, SD-10, Hypothecation of Vehicle, were executed. The loan Account no. 697506120000012 was opened with the plaintiff bank.
4. The defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @ 13.30 % per annum with monthly interest or at such other rates as per banking rules and RBI guidelines.
5. However, the borrower/defendant failed to adhere to the agreed terms and conditions of the Sanction Advice/Loan documents and he remained quite irregular in making the payment of the monthly installments. The defendant/borrower had also categorically agreed that in the event of default/delay in the repayment of the outstanding dues together with interest and non- regularization of the account, the plaintiff bank shall be within its rights to charge penal interest over the above the prescribed rate of interest in accordance with its policy.
6. The defendant's account was ultimately classified as N.P.A. on 31.12.2019.
7. Despite multiple calls and messages by the plaintiff CS SCJ 936/21 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 3 of 9 to the defendant, the defendant failed to make the outstanding payment. Plaintiff bank issued a legal notice to the defendant on 04.03.2020 claiming the outstanding amount but defendant did not comply to the demand of the plaintiff bank.
8. After giving due credit/adjustment of the payments deposited by the defendant in the said loan account, from time to time, as per the books of accounts regularly maintained by the plaintiff bank in its ordinary course of banking, a sum of Rs. 31,268/- including memoranda interest calculated upto 23.06.2021 is due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 31,268/- together with pendentelite and future interest @ 13.30% per annum with monthly rests from the date of institution of the suit till realization from the defendant.
9. In the background of these facts, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery.
SUMMONS:-
10. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 16.09.2021. The defendant could not be served by ordinary process. Thus, summons of the suit was served upon the defendant by way of publication in the CS SCJ 936/21 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 4 of 9 newspaper "Veer Arjun" on 12.06.2022. Despite service, neither did the defendant appear nor filed his written statement. Vide order dated 06.08.2022, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
11. In ex-parte plaintiff evidence, the Aurthorised Representative (AR) of the plaintiff bank, Sh. Puneet Kumar, deposed as PW-1, vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point X and point Y, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint.
12. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. The AR of plaintiff relied upon the following documents-
S. No. Documents Exhibits
1 Copy of Power of Attorney. Ex. PW-
1/1(OSR)
2 Copy of Sanction Letter Ex. PW-
dated 01.07.2017. 1/2(OSR)
3 Copy of Demand Promissory Ex. PW-
CS SCJ 936/21
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV
Page No. 5 of 9
Note dated 01.07.2017. 1/3(OSR)
4 Copy of SD-23-A (Letter of Ex. PW-
Confirmation) dated 1/4(OSR)
02.06.2018.
5 Copy of Letter of continuity Ex. PW-
AD-09(M) dated 01.07.2017. 1/5(OSR) 6 Copy of SD-24 Interest Ex.PW-
Agreement dated 01.07.2017. 1/6(OSR) 7 Copy of letter of undertaking Ex.PW-
from borrowers dated 1/7(OSR)
01.07.2017.
8 Copy of hypothecation of Ex.PW-
vehicles agreement (SD-10) 1/8(OSR) (Modified) dated 01.07.2017.
9 NPA Certificate. Ex.PW-1/9 10 Legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/10 04.03.2020.
11 Statement of account duly Ex.PW-1/11 certified as per Banker's Book Evidence Act.
12 Certificate u/s 65B of the Ex.PW-1/12 Indian Evidence Act.
13. Vide separate statement of the AR of the plaintiff, plaintiff evidence was closed on 18.04.2023.CS SCJ 936/21
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 6 of 9 This is the entire evidence adduced in this matter.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
14. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. I have heard the submissions advanced by him. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
FINDINGS:-
15. From the perusal of the plaint and evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it transpires that the defendant had applied for loan to purchase E-Rickshaw with the plaintiff bank. The loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna vide sanction letter dated 01.07.2017 exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2. Thereafter, the defendant had executed a promissory note exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3, a hypothecation agreement exhibited as Ex.PW-1/8 and an interest agreement exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6 in favour of the plaintiff bank. Further, the defendant had executed a letter of undertaking exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 in favour of the plaintiff bank.
16. The plaintiff has asserted that since the defendant defaulted in re-payment of the loan, the loan account of CS SCJ 936/21 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 7 of 9 the defendant was declared as NPA on 31.12.2019 and there is an outstanding of Rs. 31,268/- as on 23.06.2021.
The NPA certificate is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/9. Perusal of the statement of account exhibited as Ex. PW-1/11 supported by certificate under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex.PW-1/12 shows that the amount of Rs. 31,268/- is due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Further, the letter of confirmation of debt dated 02.06.2018, signed by the defendant exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4 shows that the defendant had acknowledged his debt on 02.06.2018.
17. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has not filed his reply to controvert the allegations and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1.
18. In view of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1, various documents placed on record and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved its case and is entitled to recover Rs.31,268/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Eight only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the CS SCJ 936/21 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 8 of 9 date of realization, from the defendant.
19. Cost of the suit is awarded to plaintiff.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
CHITRANSHI Digitally signed by CHITRANSHI
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2023.06.05 16:10:58
+05'30'
Pronounced in the open court (Chitranshi Arora)
Today on 05.06.2023 CJ-03, South-West,
Dwarka Court, ND
CS SCJ 936/21
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV
Page No. 9 of 9