Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Federal Bank Ltd vs Sh. Sandeep Rajpal on 9 December, 2021

          IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-I,
 COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS,
                         DELHI.

       CNR No. DLWT03-000602-2019
       C.S. No. 326/2019

       Federal Bank Ltd.
       Through its Authorised Representative
       Kavita Rawat, Senior Manager &
       Branch Head, Having its Registered
       Office at Federal Tower, Aluva, Kerala
       Branch office at Kirti Nagar,
       New Delhi.

                                                             ....... Plaintiff

       VERSUS

       Sh. Sandeep Rajpal
       Proprietor- M/s Rajpal Enterprises
       I-108, Block-I, Kirti Nagar,
       New Delhi-110015.

       Also at:-
       C-338, Saraswati Vihar,
       New Delhi-110034.
                                                             .......Defendant


       Date of Filing   : 22.02.2019
       Date of Judgment : 09.12.2021

              Suit for recovery of Rs. 2,20,593.64/- (Rupees Two Lakh
           Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three and Paise Sixty
             Four only) along with pendente lite and future interest @
            19.99 % per annum with monthly rests and penal interest @
                                       2% p.a.



CS No. 326/2019       Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Rajpal            Page 1/ 5
                                      JUDGMENT

1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,20,593.64/- against the defendant along with future and pendente lite interest thereon at the rate of 19.9% per annum with monthly rests and penal interest @ 2% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of its actual realization in full.

2. The version of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a major Indian commercial bank in the private sector, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Aluva, Kerala and having a branch among other places at Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. That the instant suit is preferred through its Authorised Representative Smt. Kavita Rawat, who is duly authorised to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff Bank in terms of the Power of Attorney dated 06.04.2009.

It is also averred by the plaintiff that the defendant is a customer of the plaintiff bank who had been maintaining a Current Account with the Kirti Nagar branch of the plaintiff bearing Account no. 18200200000194 in the name of M/s Rajpal Enterprises, bearing his proprietorship concern, since 07.06.2012 for his business purposes. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant was a regular customer of the plaintiff bank and used to avail credit facilities in the nature of temporary overdraft on a regular basis from the plaintiff bank through its Kirti Nagar branch. That the defendant availed temporary overdraft facility (hereinafter referred to as "TOD") to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.02.2017. That the TOD facility availed on 06.02.2017 which was used by the defendant for passing the following cheques:

(i). Transfer cheque bearing No. 51018116 dated 06.02.2017 for Rs.

1,25,000/- favouring Mrs. Seema Rajpal

(ii). Transfer cheque bearing No. 51018117 dated 06.02.2017 for Rs. 25,000/- favouring Ansh Rajpal.

(iii). Clearing cheque bearing No. 51018115 dated 04.02.2017 for Rs. 2,000/- favouring Saleem.

It is also submitted by the plaintiff that another TOD facility to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- was availed by defendant no. 09.02.2017 for meeting his emergent business needs qua a clearing cheque bearing No. 51018119 dated 08.02.2017 for Rs. 10,000/- favouring Gaurav Pruthi. That the TOD facilities were availed by defendant on 06.02.2017 and 09.02.2017 on the specific assurance that the same would be repaid to the plaintiff within a period of one week along with the applicable rate of interest. That only on the specific assurance of the defendant of timely repayment, defendant was granted TOD facility by the plaintiff for honouring the aforementioned cheques. That even though TOD was supposed to be adjusted/repaid within a period of 07 days but even after lapse of considerable time the debit balance was not adjusted/repaid by the defendant and the account turned NPA on 06.05.2017.

It is further submitted by the plaintiff that reminding defendant of his payment obligations, several reminders were also given by the plaintiff through its branch at Kirti Nagar, but to no avail. That plaintiff through his counsel issued a Legal Notice dated 07.01.2019 seeking payment of a sum of Rs. 2,14,385.64/- as on the said date to the defendant. That despite the receipt of the notice dated 07.01.2019, no payment whatsoever was made by the defendant.

It is also submitted that the cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant first arose on 06.02.2017 when defendant requested for a grant of a temporary overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the plaintiff bank for a period of one week. That the cause of action is still subsisting as the defendant has not liquidated the entire outstanding amount due to the plaintiff bank and as such the instant suit as filed is well within the period of limitation.

3. Perusal of record reveals that the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.11.2020 and thereafter PW-1 Ms. Neha Yadav, AR of the plaintiff was examined by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. In such evidence, she repeated the stand taken by plaintiff Bank in original plaint. Further, she has relied upon various documents such as, Power of Attorney in favour of the witness/PW-1 Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR), legal notice dated 07.01.2019 along with postal receipt Ex. PW-1/2, attested copy of interest charging notification of temporary overdraft of plaintiff bank i.e. Ex. PW-1/3 and statement of account along with certificate U/Sec. 65-B of Evidence Act i.e. Ex. PW-1/4 and Ex. PW-1/5 respectively. Thereafter, plaintiff closed ex-parte evidence.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the entire record.

5. As per the averments, the total amount claimed is Rs. 2,20,593.64/-. As per record, defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 11.11.2020 and ex- parte plaintiff evidence was led and ex-parte final arguments were heard. As a result of which, the averments made by the plaintiff and evidence led CS No. 326/2019 Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Rajpal Page 4/ 5 and documents produced by plaintiff remained unrebutted and unchallenged. This court has no reason to disbelieve the averments of plaint and evidence in such a situation. As such, as per the unrebutted evidence of PW-1 and documents on record, it is proved that an amount of Rs. 2,20,593.64/- is still outstanding against the defendant. Furthermore, present case has been filed within the period of limitation and this court has the jurisdiction to deal with present suit.

RELIEF:-

6. In the light of the above discussions and findings, the present suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,20,593.64/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three and Sixty Four paise only). So far as interest is concerned, in my view, ends of justice would be met, if interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the suit amount is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum only from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the suit amount. Further, plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the same.

7. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in open court                             DEEPAK        KUMAR

on 9th December, 2021                               KUMAR         Date:
                                                                  2021.12.09
                                                                  16:19:07 +0530
(This judgment contains 05 pages)

                                              (DEEPAK KUMAR-I)
                                          Commercial Civil Judge ( West)
                                            Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

CS No. 326/2019            Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Rajpal           Page 5/ 5