Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) vs Lasek Business Services Llp on 22 December, 2021
1 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL COURT):
BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-89)
Present: Sri. P.J. SOMASHEKARA, B.A.,LL.M,
LXXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 22nd day of December 2021
Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
Plaintiff: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate),
Bilekahalli branch, G-02,
Aravind S Saravathi, 80 feet Road,
Bilekahalli, Vijaya Bank Layout,
Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore.
Represented by its Senior Branch Manager
Sri. A.Sathish Kumar
(By M.E.M., Advocate)
-vs-
Defendants: 1. Lasek Business Services LLP
No.220, Mahaveer Clyx,
20th Main Road, BTM 4th Stage,
Bangalore-76
ALSO AT:
No.90, 1st Floor,
Near Consumer forum,
DVG Road,
Gandhi Bazar,
Bangalore-04
2. Smt.Srilatha Vijayashekaran,
1st Partner, Lasek Business Services LLP
W/o Vijayashekaran,
No.220, Mahaveer Clyx,
20th Main Road, BTM 4th Stage,
Bangalore-76
2 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
ALSO AT:
No.90, 1st Floor,
Near Consumer forum,
DVG Road,
Gandhi Bazar,
Bangalore-04
3. Hanumanna Deva Nanda,
2nd Partner, Lasek Business Services LLP
No.13 3rd Main Kalyani Nagar,
Vasanthapura,
Bangalore-61
Lasek Business Services LLP
Proprietor and partner-1
ALSO AT:
No.90, 1st Floor,
Near Consumer forum,
DVG Road,
Gandhi Bazar,
Bangalore-04
(Exparte)
Nature of the suit Money suit
Date of institution of the 20.12.2019
suit
Date of commencement of 26.11.2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the 22.12.2021
judgment was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 00 02
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs.5,87,816.07/- towards term loan as 3 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 on 31.10.2019 with future interest @ 12.05% p.a., a sum of Rs.11,57,274.81/- towards over draft loan as on 31.10.2019 with future interest @ 12.05% p.a. and a sum of Rs.1,03,682.24/- towards personal loan as on 31.11.2019 with future interest @ 17.60% p.a.. In total Rs.18,48,774/- along with interest from the date of the suit till its realization.
2. Brief facts of the plaint are as under :
The plaintiff bank in its plaint has alleged that the defendants were approached for term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the application which submitted dated 21.11.2016 loan has been sanctioned for Rs.5,00,000/- and convey to the defendants, the terms of sanction has been accepted by the defendants and received the said sanction sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed the receipt for the same in its favour. The defendants have executed the composite hypothecation agreement in its favour, securing the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 01.12.2016. But the defendants failed to repay the loan with interest thereby issued a demand notice to the defendants on 19.12.2018 calling upon the defendants to pay the overdue loan account. But the defendants did not come forward nor clear outstanding due amount in their loan account. The defendants were due a sum of Rs.4,97,652/-
with interest as the defendants neither clear the outstanding loan 4 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 amount nor reply to the said notice. The defendants are due to pay a sum of Rs.5,87,816.07/- with interest as on 31.10.2019 with future interest @ 12.05% p.a..
3. The defendants were also approached for overdraft loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and as per the application which submitted by the defendants dated 20.11.2015 a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- has been sanctioned to the defendants and it was conveyed to the defendants. The term loan has been accepted by the defendants and they received a sanctioned loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and the defendants were executed the composite hypothecation agreement in its favour securing the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 31.11.2015 and further the same was renewed and executed same in its favour securing the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 30.01.2018.
4. The Plaintiff Bank in its plaint has further alleged that two process note has been issued on 26.11.2015 and 30.01.2018 respectively. The defendants failed to repay the loan therefore, got issued demand notice on 19.12.2018 requesting them to pay the overdue loan amount. The notice contained the information about the outstanding loan account of Rs.10,18,500/- with interest as per the agreement. The defendants neither clear the outstanding loan nor reply to the said notice and defendants were 5 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 due a sum of Rs.11,57,274.81/- with interest as on 31.10.2019 and future interest @ 12.05% p.a..
5. The plaintiff bank in its plaint has further alleged that the second defendant approached for personal loan of Rs.80,000/- and submitted the application on 08.02.2018. So, based on the application loan was sanctioned for Rs.80,000/- and convey to the defendant No.2 as per the sanction letter dated 09.02.2018 and the defendant has been accepted that the terms and conditions of the said loan executed the guarantee agreement in its favour securing amount of Rs.80,000/- on 09.02.2018. The defendant No.2 has failed to repay the said loan amount with interest. Thereby, got issued a demand notice to the defendant on 19.12.2018 requesting the defendant No.2 to pay the overdue loan amount. The notice contained information stating the outstanding loan amount of Rs.89,465/- with interest as per the agreement. But the defendants neither cleared the outstanding loan nor reply to the said notice. The defendants are due to pay sum of Rs.3,682.34/- with interest as on 30.11.2019 with future interest @ 17.60% p.a. till the entire amount is paid and for the purpose of sanction of the loan scrutinized the entire documents pertaining to the address proof, Identity proof, Aadhar card, Pan card for its better satisfaction and obtained the self attested 6 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 copies. Now, the defendants are due a sum of Rs.5,87,816.07/- towards term loan account, Rs.11,57,274.81/- towards overdraft account and Rs.1,03,682.24/- towards personal loan account. The cause of action for the suit which arise on 21.11.2016 for term loan and on 20.11.2016 for the overdraft loan on 08.02.2018 for personal loan respectively, when the defendants submitted the application for loan and when the loan has been sanctioned and the defendants were executed the composite hypothecation agreement dated 01.12.2016 for term loan and 30.11.2015 and 30.01.2018 for overdraft loan and guarantee agreement dated 09.02.2018 for personal loan respectively and when the defendants failed to repay the loan amount and when the notice got issued to the defendants to calling upon them to pay the loan amount with interest within the jurisdiction of this court and prays for decree the suit.
6. In response of the suit summons, the defendant No.2 has been appeared through her counsel. Though the summons has been served on the defendant No.1 and 3. But they did not appeared nor filed their written statement as they were placed exparte. The defendant No.2 in spite of sufficient time did not chosen to file the written statement. Thereby, the written statement of the defendant No.2 taken as not filed. 7 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
7. The plaintiff bank in order to prove the plaint averments has examined its Senior Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. The plaintiff bank has not examined any witness in its favour.
8. Heard the arguments on the plaintiff side.
9. The points that arise for court consideration are as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. What order or decree?
10. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative; Point No.2: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1: The plaintiff bank has approached the court on the ground that the defendants were availed term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- overdraft loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and personal loan of Rs.80,000/- and executed documents by agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest. But in spite of repeated request and demand the defendants did not keep up their terms as agreed. Thereby, the plaintiff bank has filed the instant suit against the defendants.
12. The plaintiff bank in order to prove plaint averments has examined its Senior Branch Manager as PW.1, who filed his 8 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 affidavit as his chief-examination by reiterating the plaint averments stating that the defendants were approached the bank for term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and filed the application in pursuance of the application loan of Rs.5,00,000/- has been sanctioned which conveyed to the defendants and defendants were accepted the terms of the loan and executed the receipt and also executed composite hypothecation agreement and they have also approached the bank for overdraft loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and filed the application in pursuance of the said application loan of Rs.10,00,000/- has been sanctioned. It was conveyed to the defendants who expedite the same and receiving said amount and defendant No.2 availed the personal loan of Rs.80,000/- and expedite the terms and conditions of the said loan. But they did not repay the loan amount with interest in spite of repeated request and demand. Thereby, got issued a legal notice to the defendants to calling upon them for payment of the loan amount with interest. But they did not do so. Thereby, the plaintiff bank has filed the instant suit against the defendants.
13. It is an admitted fact the plaintiff bank has filed the instant suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.18,48,774/- with interest from the date of the suit till its realization. On the ground that the defendants were availed the loan by agreeing to 9 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 repay loan amount with interest for their business purpose they did not repay the same. Though no dispute either on the jurisdiction point nor maintainability of the suit before this court. However, it is necessary to consider these aspects before considering the materials on record as the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendants, for recovery of the loan which availed by the defendants for business purpose. Thus this court drawn its attention on Sec.2(i)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads like this:
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;10 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements; (x) management and consultancy agreements; (xi) joint venture agreements; (xii) shareholders agreements; (xiii) subscription and investment
agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements;
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits; (xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and re-insurance;11 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
The provision under Sec.2(c)(i) which referred above is very much clear the first category which referred above, includes disputes of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents including enforcement and interpretation of such documents. The definition naturally will cover the dispute of all kinds of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders. The banks are established under Banking Regulation Act for the purpose of business and commerce, naturally all transaction of bank about giving of loans, recovery thereof, deposits in banks etc., should fall within the category of commercial dispute. If the specified value there of is more than Rs.3,00,000/-. So the facts which pleaded in the plaint comes under the commercial dispute.
14. Now the question is whether the dispute which stated supra comes under the jurisdiction of commercial court. Thus, this court drawn its attention on Sec.6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads like this:
12 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
Section 6: Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.
6. The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested jurisdiction, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted as per the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
The above provision is very much clear that the commercial court shall have the jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to commercial dispute.
15. Now the question is whether this court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute. Thus, this court drawn its attention on Sec.3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads like this:
Section 3: Constitution of Commercial Courts.
3. (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High 13 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
2[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.] 3[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as 14 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 it may consider necessary.] The above provision is very much clear that by virtue of the notification specified the pecuniary value of this court which shall not be less than Rs.3,00,000/- Admittedly, the plaintiff in the plaint itself has stated that the defendants are due a sum of Rs.18,48,774/- with interest and the plaintiff bank has filed the instant suit against the defendants on 20.12.2019 i.e. after the amendment of Commercial Courts Act, 2018. Prior to the amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the commercial court is of Rs.1 Crore and above, but by virtue of the amendment of Commercial Courts Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the commercial court shall not be less than Rs.3,00,000/-. So this court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute by virtue of the provision which stated supra.
16. The plaintiff bank in support of the oral evidence has produced the documents which marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. Ex.P.1 is the loan application which filed by the defendants sought for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for business purpose. Ex.P.2 is the composite hypothecation agreement which executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.P.3 is the process note reflects the defendant No.1 being the partnership firm and 15 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 sought for loan for business purpose. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the legal notice dated 19.12.2018 reflects plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to repay the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the postal acknowledgment reflects the said notice has been served on the defendants. Ex.P.7 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.8 is the statement of accounts reflects as on the date of the suit, the defendants were due a sum of Rs.5,87,816.07/-. Ex.P.9 is the loan application which filed by the defendants and sought for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for their business purposes. Ex.P.10 is the composite hypothecation agreement reflects the defendants have executed the said amount in favour of the plaintiff bank after availment of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for their business purpose. Ex.P.11 is the composite hypothecation agreement which executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.P.12 is the process note which executed by the defendants stating that the defendant No.1 being the partnership firm and the defendant No.2 and 3 being the partners of the said firm. Ex.P.13 is the process note reflects the defendants have executed the said document in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.P.14 is the postal receipts in 2 numbers. Ex.P.15 is the legal notice which issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants calling 16 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 upon them to pay the overdraft loan of Rs.10,18,500/- together with interest. Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are reflects the said notice has been served on the defendants. Ex.P.18 is the statement of accounts which reflects as on the date of suit the defendants are due a sum of Rs.11,57,274.81/- towards overdraft loan account. Ex.P.19 is the application for defendants reflects that the defendant No.2 has availed personal loan from the plaintiff bank for Rs.80,000/-. Ex.P.20 is the guarantee agreement which executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.21 is the guarantee agreement. Ex.P.22 is the legal notice which issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants to calling upon them to pay personal loan amount of Rs.1,03,682.24/-. But the defendants did not come forward to pay the same. Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.25 are reflects the plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice through RPAD and same have been served on the defendants. Ex.P.26 is the statement of account reflects the defendants were due a sum of Rs.1,03,682.24/- towards personal loan. Ex.P.27 is the certificate filed U/s. 2(a)(b) of Bankers Books Evidence Act. So, the documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 are coupled with orals of the PW.1.
17. If at all the defendants were not availed term loan, overdraft loan nor personal loan or executed documents in 17 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 response of the suit summons they would have appeared and resistant of the claim of the plaintiff bank. But the reasons best known to the defendants in spite of service of summons they did not appeared, nor resisted the claim of the plaintiff bank. On the other hand, the contents of the plaint and the documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 are remained unchallenged and the plaintiff bank has proved its case through oral and documentary evidence. Hence, I am of the opinion that the point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
18. POINT NO.2: In view of my answer to point No.1 as stated above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with cost. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount of Rs.18,48,774/- towards term loan, overdraft loan and personal loan with interest @ 15.05% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2021) (P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City 18 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1 A Sathish Kumar List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
Nil List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Loan application
Ex.P.2 Composite hypothecation agreement
Ex.P.3 Process note
Ex.P.4 Copy of the Legal notice dt:19.12.2018
Ex.P.5 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.7 Postal receipt
Ex.P.8 Statement of accounts relating to term loan
Ex.P.9 Loan application form of overdraft loan
Ex.P.10 Composite hypothecation agreement
Ex.P.11 Composite hypothecation agreement
Ex.P.12 Process note
Ex.P.13 Process note
Ex.P.14 Postal receipts in 2 numbers
Ex.P.15 Copy of the notice dt:19.12.2018
Ex.P.16 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.17 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.18 Statement of accounts
Ex.P.19 Application for advances
Ex.P.20 Letter of sanction dt:19.02.2018
19 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019
Ex.P.21 Guarantee agreement
Ex.P.22 Copy of the notice dt:19.12.2018
Ex.P.23 Postal receipts in 2 numbers
Ex.P.24 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.25 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.26 Statement of accounts
Ex.P.27 Certificate filed U/Sec.65B of Evidence Act
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City 20 Com.O.S.No.9477/2019 Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separate;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with cost.
The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount of Rs.18,48,774/- towards term loan, overdraft loan and personal loan with interest @ 15.05% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City