Delhi District Court
Branch Office vs Mr. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar on 19 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)
EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 206/2020
Union Bank of India
(erstwhile Corporation Bank)
Having its Head Office at
Union Bank Bhawan
Nariman Point, Mumbai21
Branch Office :
Plot No. 4, Chetan Plaza DAV Complex
Mayur Vihar PhaseI, Delhi
Through its AR Shri Santosh Kumar ...............Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar
S/o Shri Lumaji D Amrujkar
R/o D402, Satisar Appt.
Plot No. 6, Sector7
Dwarka, Delhi
2. Mrs. Pranjali S Amrujkar
W/o Mr. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar
R/o D402, Satisar Appt.
Plot No. 6, Sector - 7
Dwarka, Delhi
3. M/s Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt. Ltd.
(Builder & Developer)
Through its Managing Directors
Regd. Off.: 307, Nipun Tower
Also at :
Plot No. 15, Community Centre
CS (Comm) No. 206/2020
Union Bank of India Vs. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar 1 of 5
Karkardooma, Delhi
Also at:
C56/40, Sector - 62
Noida, G.B. Nagar, UP ................Defendants
Date of institution : 05.11.2020
Date of reserving judgment : 04.07.2022
Date of judgment : 19.07.2022
JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.9,23,523/ against the defendant.
2. The plaintiff Bank is a body corporate constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and is having one of its Branch at Chetan Plaza DAV Complex, Mayur Vihar PhaseI, Delhi and the present suit has been filed through its constituted attorney Shri Santosh Kumar posted as Branch Manager who has been authorized to file the present suit vide power of attorney dt. 09.09.2009, and has been authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit.
3. In brief, the facts as averred in the plaint are that defendant No. 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff Bank for grant of housing loan facility of Rs.21,00,000/ for purchasing an under construction Flat bearing Unit No. F101405 on 14th floor, Tower/BlockF10, admeasuring 885 sq. ft. situated in the project named Amrapali Tropical Garden, situated at Plot No.GH05, Tech ZoneIV, in Greater Noida (West), District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, which belonged to defendant No. 3. It has been averred that defendants No. 1 and 2 were sanctioned an amount of Rs.21,00,000/ vide CSI dated 05.05.2014, and they agreed to repay the said loan on floating CS (Comm) No. 206/2020 Union Bank of India Vs. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar 2 of 5 rate of interest of 10.25 % per annum compounded annually and in case of default of EMI, they shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 2% per annum over the normal rate of interest. It has further been averred that both the said defendants agreed with the terms and conditions and executed the requisite documents while the plaintiff Bank mortgaged the property proposed to be purchased by them. It has been averred that defendant no. 1 also entered into agreement with defendant no. 3 who issued allotment cum flat buyer agreement dated 24.12.2013 in favour of defendants no. 1 & 2. On the basis of assurance of defendants, plaintiff entered into tripartite agreement with defendants dated 29.05.2014.
4. It has been averred that the defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and were not regular in paying the installments of the loan amount. The plaintiff Bank issued legal notice dated 19.01.2018 to the defendants but despite receipt of the notice, they failed to regularize their loan account nor deposited the outstanding amount. Hence, it is stated that defendants are jointly and severely liable to to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs.9,23,523/ including interest.
5. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants No. 1 and 2 who were served through publication in the Hindi daily newspaper 'Veer Arjun' dated 07.01.2022 and English daily 'The Statesman' dated 08.01.2022. However, no appearance or any written statement was filed on behalf of any of defendants. Thus, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.04.2022.
6. The matter was fixed for exparte evidence of the plaintiff. However, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in view of the CS (Comm) No. 206/2020 Union Bank of India Vs. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar 3 of 5 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, there is no requirement for leading any evidence in exparte cases and a decree can be passed straight away. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment delivered in Parsvanath Developers Ltd. Vs. Vikram Khosla dated 03.3.2021, in CS (Comm) No.618/2019 and CM No.8431 of 2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
7. I have heard Shri Shivam Pandey - Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Bank and have also gone through the records of the case.
8. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present matter is a commercial suit and defendants have no prospect of succeeding. He further submitted that since the defendants have failed to appear and contest the proceedings, the same be treated as admitted by the defendants and therefore, no issue arises for adjudication and relief as prayed in the suit, be granted and the suit be decreed.
9. I agree with the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants did not care to appear before this Court and were proceeded exparte. Under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, where a party who is required to file written statement fails to file the same within the time fixed by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment forthwith and decree shall be drawn. This view was also taken by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgment (supra).
10. From the facts as narrated above and the documents placed on record, it is clear that the loan was extended to the defendants who utilized the same but failed to repay the same despite receiving the legal demand notice. The loan documents are on record including the loan application bearing the signatures of the parties. The plaintiff has also placed on record CS (Comm) No. 206/2020 Union Bank of India Vs. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar 4 of 5 the account statement of the defendant No. 1 and 2 which reflects that only some meager amount was repaid by the said defendants and thereafter, they stopped paying the same. A copy of the Allotment cum Buyer Agreement is also on record with defendant No. 3 who had utilized the loan amount and had mortgaged the suit property. A Tripartite Agreement was also executed between defendant No. 1 and 2, defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff, copy of which is also on record. The legal demand notice also forms part of record which was issued to the defendants.
11. The above facts and the documents on record clearly shows and prove that the defendants after utilizing the loan amount, failed to repay the same and therefore, the plaintiff Bank is entitled for a decree as prayed for.
12. In view thereof, it is held that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay to the plaintiff Bank a sum of Rs.9,23,523/ alongwith interest @ 12.25% per annum from 05.11.2020 till the realization of the said amount, which was the agreed rate of interest. The suit of the plaintiff Bank is accordingly decreed in its favour.
Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19th day of July 2022 (SANJAY SHARMAI) District Judge (Commercial Court) East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) No. 206/2020 Union Bank of India Vs. Shailesh Lumaji Amrujkar 5 of 5