Bangalore District Court
M/S. Hdfc Bank Limited vs (1) Citizen Steels on 14 November, 2016
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P.67]
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO. 27272 / 2012
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff:-
M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, Office at Golden Towers, 2nd floor, Old Airport
Road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru 560 017 represented by its Deputy Manager Mr.
Srikanth B.
(By S.A. Associates, Advocates)
V/s.
Defendants:-
(1) Citizen Steels, represented by its Partner Mr. Maheen Basha, No.6, Old
No.60/1, Mahmoodia, Mosque Complex, N.R. Road, 1st cross,
Mothinagar, Bengaluru 560 002.
(2) Mr. Maheen Basha,
(3) Mr. Noor-Ul-Hasan,
(4) Mr. Najm-Ul-Hasan,
(5) Mrs. Zaibannissa
(2) to (5) are at No.25/1-2, Bore Bank Road, Benson Town Post, Bengaluru.
(Defendant No.1 to 4 by Mohammed Wazir and Associates,
Defendant No.5 placed exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 29.11.2012
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Money
Date of the commencement of recording of the
08.08.2016
Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 14.11.2016
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 03 11 15
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
2 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff Bank has filed this suit against defendants for recovery of money of Rs.5,91,912.90/- with future interest at the rate of BPLR (Benchmark Prime Lending Rate) 2.75% per annum, contending that, defendant No.1 is a Partnership firm engaged in the business of retail and wholesale trading of Iron and Steel Products and for the purpose of working capital requirements defendants approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance through overdraft/cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and after considering the application, defendants were sanctioned Overdraft facility and defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of BPLR-2.75% p.a. upon the daily balances shown by the said overdraft account and interest shall be calculated and payable with monthly/quarterly rests. Defendant have accepted the terms of overdraft facility and Defendant No.1 executed Overdraft Agreement, Power of attorney, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of General Lien and Set off, etc., in favour of the plaintiff bank. Defendants 2 to 5 entered into the agreement as guarantors with execution of letter of continuing guarantee.
3 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012
2) Defendants after availing the overdraft facility utilized the same and failed to regularize the loan account as agreed and the amount of utilization as on 6.9.2012 is 5,91,912.90/-. Despite several requests and reminders, the defendants failed to regularize the overdraft account, as agreed by them. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue Demand Notice dated 11.9.2012 calling upon defendants to pay the outstanding balance. Inspite of it, defendants failed to regularize the overdraft account. Therefore, as on the date of this suit, defendants were due to the plaintiff bank a total sum of Rs.5,91,912.90/-. Hence, this suit.
3) After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to defendants. Defendant No.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel. Inspite of service of summons on defendant No.5, he did not turn up. Hence, defendant No.5 was placed exparte. Defendant No.1 to 4 did not file written statement inspite of grant of sufficient time and opportunity. Hence this case was posted for evidence of the plaintiff bank.
4) The plaintiff bank in order to prove its case, got filed the Affidavit of its Manager by way of examination-in- 4 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012 chief. Same was taken as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 documents and closed the evidence of the plaintiff bank. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4 did not cross examine the evidence of PW1.
5) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4 not canvassed any arguments.
6) The Points that would arise for the consideration of this court are as follows:
(1) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that, defendant No.1 firm availed overdraft facility to the extent of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from plaintiff bank agreeing to regularize the loan account with interest at BPLR-2.75% p.a.?
(2) Whether the plaintiff bank proves that, the defendants have utilized over draft facility as on 06.09.12 to the tune of Rs.5,91,912.90/- and failed to regularize the loan account ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff Bank proves that it is entitled to recover the suit claim amount of Rs. 5,91,912.90/- with future interest at BPLR-2.75% p.a.?
(4) What order or decree?
7) My findings to the above Points are as follows:5 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.3: In the affirmative Point No.4: For the following:
REASONS
8) POINT NOS.1 to 3:- Since, Point Nos. 1 to 3 are interlinked with each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts PW1 in his Affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint averments and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 documents.
9) In this case, defendants 1 to 4 though appeared through their counsel they did not file any written statement nor led evidence on their behalf. Defendant No.5 was placed exparte and thus, it is crystal clear that, defendants have not at all placed any contrary materials on record to discard or disbelieve the case of the plaintiff bank. If at all the case of the plaintiff bank is not correct, defendants would have definitely contested the case of the plaintiff by leading evidence, but, they 6 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012 have not done so, which clearly goes to show that, defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiff bank.
10) On perusal of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff bank at Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the resolution of the plaintiff Bank, Ex.P2 Demand Promissory Note, Ex.P3 letter of General Lien and Set off, Ex.P4 agreement for overdraft, Ex.P5 Power of Attorney, Ex.P6 supplemental letter of hypothecation of stocks, books debts and machinery, Ex.P7 letter of continuing guarantee, which goes to show that defendants have applied for sanction of loan for overdraft facility for a limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with the plaintiff bank and agreed to continue their guarantee for repayment of overdraft facility availed by them. Ex.P8 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff Bank to defendants calling upon them to pay the utilized amount of Rs.5,91,912.90/-, Ex.P9 & 10 are postal receipts and Ex.P11 to 15 Postal acknowledgements. Ex.P16 is the account statement in respect of defendants maintained by the Bank. From the above documents, it is crystal clear that, defendants availed overdraft facility to the limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank and utilized an amount of Rs.5,91,912.90/- as on 06.09.12, agreeing to regularize the 7 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012 said loan amount. Defendants while availing overdraft facility of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank have agreed to the terms and conditions of the facility availed by them and executed the aforementioned necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff Bank. But, after availing the said facility, defendants have failed to regularize the loan account as agreed by them. The plaintiff bank by issuing notice has demanded the defendant to repay the outstanding due to the plaintiff bank. Thus, the plaintiff bank has proved that, the defendant had availed overdraft of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from it agreeing to regularize the said account and defendants executed necessary loan documents, as narrated above, in favour of the plaintiff bank. But, defendants, as agreed by them failed to regularize the loan account with the plaintiff bank and failed to repay the utilized amount of Rs.5,91,912.90/-
as on 06.09.12, despite issuance of notice to defendants. Hence, defendants are liable to repay the utilized amount of Rs.5,91,912.90/- to the plaintiff Bank. Hence, I am of the view that, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit claim amount of Rs.5,91,912.90/- from the defendants.
11) The plaintiff bank has sought for future interest at the rate of BPLR-2.75% per annum. The defendants by 8 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012 executing necessary documents in favour of plaintiff Bank have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2.75% p.a. Therefore, the plaintiff Bank is entitled to the interest at agreed rate. Therefore, I answer Point Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative.
12) POINT NO.4:- In view of the aforesaid reasons on Point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with costs.
2) The defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,91,912.90/- [Rupees five lakh ninety one thousand nine hundred and twelve and paise ninety only] to the plaintiff bank with future interest at the agreed rate of 2.75% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of realization of the decreetal amount.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer, corrections carried out and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of November, 2016).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT : BANGALORE.
9 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Mr. Kishore Kumar Hegde 8.8.2016 LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Authorization
Ex.P2 Demand Promissory Note
Ex.P3 Letter of General Lien and Set off
Ex.P4 Agreement for overdraft
Ex.P5 Power of Attorney
Ex.P6 Supplemental letter of hypothecation of stocks, books
debts and machinery
Ex.P7 Letter of continuing guarantee
Ex.P8 Legal notice
Ex.P9 & 10 Postal receipts
Ex.P11 to 15 Postal acknowledgements
Ex.P16 Account statement in respect of defendants
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANT/S:
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
DEFENDANT/S:
NIL
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.10 O.S.No. 27272 / 2012
14.11.2016 Pltff: by Sri SAMS D1to4:by Sri BW Judgement pronounced in the open court D5 Exparte (Vide separate detailed Judgement) Judgment Suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with costs.
2) The defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,91,912.90/- [Rupees five lakh ninety one thousand nine hundred and twelve and paise ninety only] to the plaintiff bank with future interest at the agreed rate of 2.75% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of realization of the decreetal amount.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE