Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Karan Gupta And Ors on 18 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01) NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM)/268/20
CNR No.DLNW01-010087312020
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
A Body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act,
1955 having its Head Office/Central Office/Corporate Office at
State Bank Bhavan, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai-440024, one of
its Local Head Office at 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-01 and one of
its Branches at State Bank of India, State Bank of India, Bawana
Road Delhi, and RACPC at A-5, Pearl Best Height-I, Netaji
Subhash Palace, New Delhi
Through its Manager Ms. Saba Arshi .......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Karan Gupta
S/o Mr. Binod Kumar Gupta
2. Mr. Binod Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Ramswarup Saw
Both R/o: 154, Ward No.17, Devi Sarai,
PO-Maghara, City-Bihar Sharif, District-Nalanda,
Bihar-803101 .......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.5,23,508/- ALONGWITH
FUTURE AND PENDENTE-LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
Date of institution : 19.12.2020
Date of final arguments heard : 17.02.2026
Date of judgment : 18.03.2026
CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 1 of 15
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of present judgment I shall adjudicate upon the suit of plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs.5,23,508/- alongwith pendentlite and future, filed against the defendants.
2.1 Brief facts: The facts of the case in brief are that the Plaintiff is a Body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955(Act No. XXIII of 1955). That the plaintiff is engaged in the field of Banking. The present suit has been instituted under the signatures of Ms. Saba Arshi, Manager of the plaintiff bank.
2.2 It is stated that on re-organization of set up of the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Centre, has been introduced/established by the Plaintiff Bank to deal exclusively with the Non-Performing Assets Accounts of Branches of State Bank of India situated within Delhi/New Delhi for restructuring of the borrower and Recovery of the amounts due against the said borrowers etc. Hence the NPA Accounts of the Branches throughout Delhi have been transferred to RACPC at A-5, Pearl Best Height-I, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi for the convenience of operation & execution. Hence RACPC at A-5, Pearl Best Height-I, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi in place of State Bank of India, Bawana Road Delhi, Branch is filing the present Suit.
2.3. It is stated that the plaintiff bank is engaged in the business of Banking whereas Mr. Karan Gupta as borrower and Mr. CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 2 of 15 Binod Kumar Gupta as Co-borrower/Guarantor had approached the Plaintiff Bank at its Bawana Road, New Delhi branch for granting of Financial assistance by way of Education Loan under SBI Education Loan Scheme for pursuing desired course. That the Defendants had submitted their Identification, residence & Income proof etc. to the Plaintiff in order to avail such facility.
2.4 It is stated that Considering the proposal, requirement & financial feasibility & viability of the Defendants, the Plaintiff Bank after processing their criteria, sanctioned & disbursed to the Defendants a sum Rs.5,20,000/- (Rs. Five Lac Twenty Thousand Only) on dated 27.03.2015, for pursuing the said desired courses, which the Defendant No.1& Defendant No.2 availed as borrower/Co-borrower returnable with agreed EMI per month to the Plaintiff.
2.5 It is stated that as per terms & conditions for grant of the said Education Loan Facility, the Defendants consciously & voluntarily had executed various security documents and created various securities in favour of the Plaintiff Bank for repayment with applicable expenses & interest pertaining to the said Education Loan Facility. It is also stated that the Defendants had also given certain supporting documents to the Plaintiff Bank in their favour to concrete entitlement for the said loan. It is further stated that the defendants had agreed to pay interest on the outstanding Loan amount at the effective rate of interest @ 11.75% p.a. with monthly CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 3 of 15 rests if paid during moratorium subject to rise & fall time to time as per Banking Guidelines and penal interest over the agreed interest with monthly rest to be charged for the overdraft amount and overdue period. That the defendants had undertaken & agreed to repay the loan amount in 84 EMI of Rs.9,111/-, However, it is presently as per long enquiry dated 07.01.2020 is 138 EMI of Rs.12,326/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six Only) in terms of Agreement containing schedule therein. It is stated that all the above documents were filled in, read over and explained to the Defendants who had signed the same voluntarily and consciously after understanding the implication and delivered the same to the Plaintiff Bank.
2.6 It is stated that the aforesaid Education Loan facility was granted by the plaintiff bank vide Education Loan Account No. 34807992712. That the defendants have not only failed to furnish details of completion of course but also committed defaults in repayment of loan amount as a result of which said Loan Account became irregular & sticky. That the message of non payment of loan was sent personally as well telephonically repeatedly to the Defendants. That having no response from the side of the Defendants ultimately & consequently the Plaintiff Bank had to recall the loan outstanding amount with accrued interest and expenses and had to declare & classify their said loan Account as NPA on dated 01.01.2020 due to non-depositing of stipulated EMI/not adhering to the terms of Sanction.
CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 4 of 152.7 It is stated that various letter & reminders were sent to defendants but no response was received from them. That a Legal Notice dated 14/01/2020 vide Speed Post for Rs.6,21,128.78/- (Rs. Six Lac Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Eight and Seventy Eight Paisa Only) as on dated 08.01.2020 was also served whereby the said Loan was recalled but the same failed to evoke any response from the Defendants.
2.8 It is stated that the plaintiff Bank has been maintaining its Accounts in normal course of business and all entries relating to loan Account are duly reflected therein. That the Books of Account reflect a debit balance of Rs.5,22,590.79/- (Rs. Five Lac Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Ninety and Seventy Nine Paisa Only) as on dated 08.01.2020, exclusive of further interest & expense which the Defendants being Borrower/Co-borrower/Guarantor are liable to pay to the Plaintiff with updated interest & expenses thereupon. That the Defendants have paid no amounts even after receiving Legal notice dated 14/01/2020.
2.9 It is stated that as per the prudent norms of accounting laid down by the R.B.I, and internal accounting with regard to Non- Performing Assets (N.P.A.) declared on dated 01.01.2020, the Plaintiff Bank has not debited the interest from the Defendants in his Loan Account. That though plaintiff bank has not debited the said interest amount in the said Loan Account, but has right to recover the same, as per the contract between the Plaintiff Bank and the CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 5 of 15 Defendants.
2.10 It is stated that following sum is due and payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendants:
Outstanding Amount as per Statement of Account Rs.5,22,590.79/-
Accrued Interest upto the date 08.01.2020 Rs. 917/-
Total Rs. 5,23,508/-
(Rs. Five Lac Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Only).
2.11 It is stated that the Plaintiff is also entitled to further interest at 09.15% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of institution of this Suit till realization of the entire dues apart from other consequential expenses.
2.12 It is stated that the cause of action arose on 27.03.2015 when the Plaintiff Bank disbursed a loan of Rs. 5,20,000/- to the Defendants, repayable in EMIs after execution of the loan agreement. It further arose on subsequent dates when reminders were issued, part payments were made, the account was declared NPA on 01.01.2020, and when a legal notice was served on 14.01.2020. The cause of action is continuing in nature.
CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 6 of 152.13 It is stated that the loan documents were executed in New Delhi, the loan was disbursed and is repayable there, and the Defendants reside/work in Delhi. Hence, the Hon'ble Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.
3. Vide order dated 19.12.2020 the summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. The defendants were served through email and whatsapp, but despite service the defendants failed to appear or filed the written statement and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.12.2021 and the matter was fixed for exparte evidence of the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff Bank in support of its case examined its substituted AR Mr.Virender Kumar Handa as PW-1. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A the PW1 has reiterated the contents of plaint and relied upon following documents:-
1. The copy of Gazette notification Ex.PW1/A.
2. The original loan application cum appraisal form Ex.PW1/B (Colly).
3. The copies of documents qua Intended Eduction Loan Ex.PW1/C (Colly).
4. The original arrangement letter Ex.PW1/D.
5. The Original sanction letter Ex.PW1/E.
6. The original agreement for term loan Ex.PW1/F.
7. The original loan cum hypothecation agreement Ex.PW1/G. CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 7 of 15
8. The copies of other related documents Ex.PW1/H(Colly).
9. The original legal notice & postal receipts Ex.PW1/I(colly).
10. The copies of loan statement of account Ex.PW1/J(colly).
11. The Original Certificate u/s 2A of Bankers Book of Evidence Act & 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/K.
12. The Certificate of accrued interest is Ex.PW1/L.
5. The defendants remained exparte, hence the testimony of PW-1 has gone unchallanged and unrebutted. The Plaintiff bank did not examine any other witness and vide statement dated 17.09.2024, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
6. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Sh. R. K.Sinha, Ld.counsel for plaintiff. Written submissions on behalf of plaintiff also filed.
7. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that the defendants have failed to clear the outstanding dues as per statement of account. That the defendants failed to appear despite service and were proceeded exparte. That in view of deposition of PW1 and documents placed on record, the decree as prayed may kindly be passed.
8. It is well settled law that even in the exparte suit or CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 8 of 15 where the defence of defendant is struck off, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. The weakness of the defendant does not give ipso facto right to the plaintiff to get the relief from the court of law. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain reported as 2009(109) DRJ (DB) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the plaintiff has to prove his own case in accordance with the law and has to stand on his own legs. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another judgment titled as Sunil Dang vs. RL Gupta reported as CS(OS) 1617/2007 decided on 13.01.2009 has held that on the contrary if the defendant is ex parte, the onus is high on the plaintiff to prove its case and when the defendant is contesting the matter, the fact, which are not disputed are deemed to be proved and need not to be proved. Further when the defendant fails to appear, there can be no admission and the plaintiff has to prove the entire case in accordance with law.
9. It may be relevant now to consider the law pertaining to discharge of burden of proof of the issues as relevant and applicable to the Civil Jurisdiction. In the binding authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another v. Rattan Lal@ Rattan Singh: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 601; it has been laid down:-
1.3. It is well settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it but the said principle may not be universal in its CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 9 of 15 application and there may be an exception thereto.
10. The various aspects of proving the facts of a case and exceptions, if any, have been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh in Appeal (civil) 2413 of 2006 on 2 May, 2006, wherein the binding legal position has been reinforced as under :-
"Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. Indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side."
It has been further laid down (supra) :-
"A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.".
11. As per law of the land, the onus to prove is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 10 of 15 case to entitle him to the relief asserted, in these circumstance, the onus shifts upon the defendant to prove such circumstances which may disentitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
12. At the outset, the Court shall first take up the aspect of Limitation which is a legal issue and which the court is required to determine, for the purpose of deciding the entitlement of plaintiff to the relief claimed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants availed education loan of Rs.5,20,000/- on dated 27.03.2015 returnable with 84 EMI of Rs.9,111/- per month and on 07.01.2020 the tenure of EMI was revised to 138 of Rs.12,326/-. It is stated that the defendants failed to make payment and the account no.348079992712 of the defendants was declared NPA on 01.01.2020. The present suit has been filed on 19.12.2020 i.e. within the period of three years from the date of NPA. Thus, the suit is within limitation.
13. The Court shall now examine the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed at Delhi, the loan documents were executed within the jurisdiction of this Court, and the loan amount was repayable at Delhi within the jurisdiction of this court. The present suit has been filed before this Court, as the appropriate Court of territorial jurisdiction from where the cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff bank and against the defendants. Section 20(c) of Civil Procedure Code, clearly provides that a Court within CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 11 of 15 whose local limits the cause of action, "wholly or in part", arises, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the Suit. The averments in the pleadings and the supporting testimony of the plaintiff witness have duly proved the case in favour of the plaintiff bank that the cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant(s), within jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
14. The onus to prove the averments and claim of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff, who has to discharge the burden of proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to discharge the burden laid upon it successfully, if the plaintiff is able to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. It is the law of land as re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC
586. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra) was pleased to uphold that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely lies upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
15. It is the case of Plaintiff Bank that the Defendants approached it for grant of an education loan, pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed on 27.03.2015. The Defendants executed the necessary loan documents and agreed CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 12 of 15 to repay the loan in equated monthly instalments along with applicable interest. However, after availing the loan facility, the Defendants failed to adhere to the agreed terms and committed defaults in repayment. The substituted AR of the plaintiff in support of case of plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/1, the PW-1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint regarding grant of loan, default in repayment and outstanding liability of the defendants. The PW1 has relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/A to Ex.PW1/A to Ex. PW1/L. The Gazette notification (Ex. PW1/A) establishes the authority of the Plaintiff Bank and its officer to institute the suit. The loan application-cum-appraisal form (Ex. PW1/B) and supporting documents (Ex. PW1/C) demonstrate that the Defendants applied for the loan and submitted requisite identity, residence, and financial details. The arrangement letter (Ex. PW1/D) and sanction letter (Ex. PW1/E) reflect the formal sanction of the loan amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- along with the agreed terms of repayment and interest. The agreement for term loan (Ex. PW1/F) and loan-cum-hypothecation agreement (Ex. PW1/G) establish that the Defendants voluntarily entered into a binding contractual obligation with the Plaintiff Bank, agreeing to repay the loan along with applicable interest, charges, and expenses. The legal notice dated 14.01.2020 (Ex. PW1/I) and corresponding postal receipts confirm that the Plaintiff Bank recalled the loan and demanded payment, but the Defendants failed to respond. The statement of account (Ex. PW1/J) maintained in the ordinary course of business shows an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,22,590.79/- as on 08.01.2020, CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 13 of 15 which is certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW1/K). The certificate of accrued interest (Ex. PW1/L) brings the total amount due to Rs. 5,23,508/-.
16. The testimony of PW-1, corroborated by the above documents, has gone unchallenged and unrebutted, as the Defendants, despite service of summons, failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte. There is no evidence or material to discredit the Plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the documents, taken together, convincingly establish the Defendants' liability to repay the loan amount along with interest and expenses.
17. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the documents/evidence relied upon by the plaintiff duly proved through its sole witness, the plaintiff has been successful in establishing its entitlement for recovery against the defendant and has duly discharged its onus to prove its case by way of the standard of proof required in Civil cases i.e. proving its case by way of by preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, plaintiff has discharged the onus placed upon it by law to prove its case in its favour, as per law.
18. In light of the above discussions, plaintiff Bank has been successful in proving its entitlement for seeking recovery of money to the tune of Rs.5,23,508/-, which remains outstanding and CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 14 of 15 recoverable against the defendants, as per law.
19. Suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly decreed and the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,23,508/- against the defendants, jointly or severally with an interest @ 9% per annum, in terms of Section 34 CPC, which is just & fair and in synchrony with the prevailing rate of interests and in the facts and circumstances of the case, from the date of filing of the Suit, till the date of its realization.
Plaintiff is also entitled to recover costs of the Suit, as per law.
20. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court today DEVENDER by
KUMAR
DEVENDER
KUMAR
JANGALA
on this 18th day of March, 2026 JANGALA Date: 2026.03.23
15:30:32 +0530
( Devender Kumar Jangala )
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West, Rohini, Delhi.
18.03.2026
CS (Comm.) No.268/20 State Bank of India Vs. Karan Gupta & Anr. Page 15 of 15