Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Limited vs Piyush Jain on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 372/2024
CNR NO. DLSH01-004230-2024
ICICI BANK LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
NEAR CHAKLI CIRCLE, OLD PADRA
ROADWAYSVADODARA, GUJARAT - 390 007.
AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT :
E-3, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
PIYUSH JAIN,
S/O SH. JAIPAL JAIN
PROP. OF PIYUSH FASHION
R/O H.NO. - B-5, UPPER GROUND FLOOR,
B, BLOCK, EAST KRISHNA NAGAR,
DELHI - 110 051
M.NO. 9871465316
E-MAIL ID : [email protected]
ALSO AT :
C/O PIYUSH FASHION
P-44, GALI NO 2,
SHANKAR NAGAR EXTN.
DELHI - 110 051.
.....Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 06.07.2024
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 05.04.2025
Date of judgment : 28.04.2025
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of
Digitally signed
BRIJESH by BRIJESH
KUMAR GARG
KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.04.28
15:48:59 +0530
CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 1 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
Rs.15,39,301/-, alongwith pendetelite and future interest @24%
p.a., has been instituted, on behalf of the plaintiff bank on
06.07.2024.
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a Banking Company, within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, and is having its registered office Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390 007, and the Branch Office at E-3, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. The present suit has been instituted through Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff bank.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that in the month of December, 2020, the defendant, who is the proprietor of Piyush Fashion, approached the plaintiff bank for grant of finance facility for purchase of used vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-3CCM-5452 make CITY/ZX 1.5 EXI car, under the Auto Loans TOPUP plan, and after completion of necessary formalities, the plaintiff bank financed a sum of Rs.15,12,000/- to the defendant, out of which an amount of Rs.14,89,389/- was disbursed to him, and two Loan Accounts bearing no. LUDELL00042776536 AND SPDEL00042776568 were opened. The said loans were repayable in equated monthly installments in terms of the respective loan agreement/Credit Facility Application Forms.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that the loan amount of Rs.10,61,000/- was repayable in 60 EMIs of Rs.25,366/- w.e.f.
Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GARG
Date: 2025.04.28
GARG 15:49:10 +0530
CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 2 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
10.02.2021 to 10.01.2026 and the Loan amount of Rs.4,51,000/- was repayable in 60 EMIs of Rs.10,783/- w.e.f. 10.02.2021 to 10.01.2026.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant had assured to re-pay the loans by way of installments but he failed to discharge his liability and defaulted in paying the equated monthly installments of the aforesaid loans regularly and as per the Statement of account, as on 21.11.2023, in respect of Loan Account no. LUDELL00042776536, the defendant had paid only 17 installments, out of the 34 installments, and the last installment was paid by him on 21.11.2023. In account no. SPDEL00042776568, also he paid the last installment on 21.11.2023.
6. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff bank tried its level best to recovery the said amount and sent notices of demand dated 23.11.2022 and 02.11.2023 but, despite receipt of the said notices, he failed to make the payment.
7. It is further stated in the plaint that as per the account statement, as on 21.11.2023, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,76,077/- in his loan account no. LUDELL00042776536, and an amount of Rs.4,75,860.32 was also due in account no. SPDEL00042776568, totaling Rs.15,39,301/-.
8. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff bank may BRIJESH Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.04.28 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 3 of 11 GARG 15:49:20 +0530 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi be decreed, in its favour and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.15,39,301/-, alongwith interest, till its realization, with costs.
9. After filing of the present suit, the summons of the suit for settlement of issues were duly issued to the defendant. But the same could not be served upon the defendant, by ordinary means. Therefore, an application u/o V Rule 20 r/w Section 151 CPC was moved, on behalf of the plaintiff bank, for service of the defendant, by substituted means. Vide order dated 31.08.2024, the said application was allowed, and the defendant was ordered to be served by substituted means, by way of publication, in the national newspapers, 'The Statesman', and "Nav Bharat Times", which was subsequently changed to "Rashtriya Sahara", on the application of the plaintiff bank, vide order dated 22.11.2024.
10. Accordingly, the defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit for settlement of issues, by substituted means, by way of publication, in the national newspaper, "The Statesman" and "Rashtriya Sahara" vide publications dated 03.12.2024. But, despite due service, by way of publication, none had appeared, on behalf of the defendant and no written statement was filed on his behalf. Therefore, vide orders dated 06.02.2025, the defendant was proceeded 'exparte'.
11. During 'exparte' plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff bank has examined its Attorney Holder/AR, Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, as PW1, who has filed his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A, and proved the Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.04.28 GARG 15:49:29 +0530 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 4 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi various documents on record as Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/17.
12. 'Exparte' final arguments were concluded by Sh. Kunal Kumar, Advocate, for the plaintiff bank, on 05.04.2025. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank has reiterated the contents of the plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff bank may be decreed, in favour of the plaintiff bank, and against the defendant.
13. I have carefully perused the case file and I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant has remained 'exparte' during the trial and has failed to file his written statement and statement of truth or affidavit of admission/denial of the documents, as stipulated under the provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
14. The dispute between the parties is commercial in nature and is covered within the ambit of section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, 'Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP', reported as 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 has held that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are to be followed strictly. No liberal interpretation of the provisions has to be given and it should be read with narrow sense. It was observed as follows:
BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.04.28 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:49:36 +0530 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 5 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi "The object and purpose of the establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court is to ensure that the cases involved in commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at a reasonable cost to litigants. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts and fast tracking procedure provided under the Act, the statutory provisions of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to be meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those who are engaged in trade and commerce which in turn will further economic growth of the country."
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has the territorial jurisdiction over the present dispute, in view of the fact that the defendant is resident of East Krishna Nagar, Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
17. This Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction over the present suit, as the present suit has been filed, for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,39,301/-, alongwith interest @ 24% p.a, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realization, with cost, as the amount claimed by the plaintiff, is as per the specified value, as defined under section 2 (1) (i) and as per section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
18. The defendant made last payment of the installments on 21.11.2023, in his both the loan Accounts no. LUDELL00042776536, and SPDEL00042776568. The present suit, has been instituted on 06.07.2024, and is therefore, well Digitally signed within the period of limitation. BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2025.04.28
15:49:49 +0530
CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 6 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
19. The plaintiff bank has also filed the application for pre- litigation mediation on 13.03.2024 and a Non Starter Report was issued by DLSA, Shahdara, District, Delhi, on 16.04.2024. The mandatory requirement of section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been complied by the plaintiff bank.
20. The averments made in the plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/A have remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged and can be presumed to be admitted as correct, as the defendant, has remained 'exparte', during the trial.
21. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The relevant documents, which have been filed on record and proved by PW1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, AR of the plaintiff bank, appear to be of an unimpeachable character.
22. Perusal of the plaint and the documents on record, as well as the affidavit of PW1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, Ex. PW1/A shows that on 18.12.2020, the defendant moved a Preliminary Credit Facility Application Form, Ex. PW1/2, before the plaintiff bank, for grant of a credit facility worth Rs.8,00,000/-, for a period of 48 months, for the purchase of a used Honda Car, bearing Registration No. DL-3CCM-5452 make CITY 1.5 ZX EXI at fixed rate of interest of 16% per annum.
23. He also moved a Credit Facility Application Form, Ex.
BRIJESH Digitally by BRIJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.04.28 KUMAR GARG GARG 15:49:59 +0530 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 7 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi PW1/3, on 28.12.2020, for credit facility, for an amount not exceeding Rs. 10,61,000/-.
24. Perusal of the record and the documents further indicates that an unattested deed of hypothecation, Ex.PW1/4, was also executed by the defendant on 28.12.2020, for a loan amount worth Rs.11,10,000/-, in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-3CC M5452, Make-Honda City, Model- 2017.
25. Perusal of the record further shows that vide report dated 28.12.2020, Ex.PW1/5, a loan amount worth Rs.10,61,000/- was sanctioned to the defendant for a period of 60 months, with EMI of Rs.25,366/- at the flat rate of interest of 8.69% per annum. The said document further indicates that the aforesaid total amount of Rs.10,61,000/- was disbursed to the defendant in two parts. An amount of Rs.4,12,064/- was disbursed to the defendant in his Loan account No.102401005952. Whereas, the remaining amount of Rs.6,32,325/- was paid in his loan account No.49865078 with HDFC Bank Ltd. From the aforesaid three documents, it is clear that the complete loan amount of Rs.10,61,000/- was never disbursed to the defendant and a part of the said credit facility, worth Rs.6,32,325/-, was paid in some other loan account of the defendant, which was previously existing against him with HDFC Bank Ltd. But, nothing has been mentioned in this regard, either in the plaint or in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A. All these facts have been concealed by the plaintiff bank, from the Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.04.28 GARG 15:50:07 +0530 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 8 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi court.
26. Perusal of the record further shows that the loan amount of Rs.10,61,000/- was sanctioned to the defendant on 28.12.2020, for purchase of an old/used car bearing registration No.DL 3CCM 5452, Make-Honda City, Model-2017. But, as per the registration certificate of the said vehicle, it is clear that the said vehicle was already registered in the name of the defendant on 08.08.2017 and the defendant was using the said vehicle since 08.08.2017 and was the first owner of the said vehicle. But, the loan credit facility was advanced by the plaintiff bank against the same vehicle, which was already registered in the name of the defendant and the defendant was already using the said vehicle. From the registration certificate of the aforesaid vehicle, it is clear that the defendant, in connivance with the officials of the plaintiff bank, persuaded the officials of the plaintiff bank to sanction and disburse an amount of Rs.10,61,000/-, to him, on a false pretext, for purchase of a used car, against the vehicle which was already in his possession. The said Credit Facility was, therefore, never used for purchase of the aforesaid car.
27. From the material on record, it is clear that the plaintiff bank has concealed all these material facts from the Court and all these facts have not been mentioned/disclosed either in the plaint or in the affidavit of PW1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Ex.PW1/A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have, time and again, emphasized that suppression of material facts is a serious issue and can lead to Digitally signed BRIJESH by BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.04.28 GARG 15:50:22 +0530 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 9 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi adverse consequences for the concerned litigant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has constantly reiterated the importance of the "clean hands" doctrine, which requires the parties to approach the Courts with truth and full disclosure. Suppression of material facts is often equated with fraud and mis-representation, as it undermines the integrity of judicial process.
28. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, "The Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey"
in Civil Appeal No. 13651 of 2024, neutral citation, 2025 INSC 348, as under :
"9. It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of "Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts" is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter.
10. As held in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr., in Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India etc. (emphasis supplied)
29. In the light of above Judgment of the Hon'ble Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR KUMAR GARG Date: 2025.04.28 GARG 15:50:39 +0530 CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 10 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff bank is also not entitled for any relief from this Court, in the present suit. Therefore, the present suit is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.
It is ordered accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BRIJESH BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
Announced in the open Court on KUMAR Date:
this 28th day of April, 2025 GARG 2025.04.28
15:50:48
+0530
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
District Judge,
Commercial Court-01,
Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi/rs
CS (Comm.) No 372/24 page 11 of 11 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi