Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Girdhar Singh Meena on 27 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.624/14
State Bank of India
A Corporate Constituted under
The State Bank of India Act, 1995
Having its Central Office / Corporate Centre
at State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai400024,one of its Local Head Office
at 11 Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001, one
of its branch at Kishan Ganj, Delhi110007,
including one known as Stressed Assets
Recovery Branch at 23,First Floor,Najafgarh
Road,New Delhi through its Deputy Manager
/ City Case Officer Mr. Rakesh Arora. .... Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh. Girdhar Singh Meena
S/o Sh. Vijay Singh Meena
R/o Railway Quarter no.203/C1,
RPSF Colony No.6th BN/RPSF,
Dayabasti, Delhi110035.
Also at:
Sh. Girdhar Singh Meena
R/o Village: Sewala,
P.O. Gadoali, PS Nadwej,
District: Bharatpur, Rajasthan. .... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,22,482/ WITH PENDENTE LITE &
FUTURE INTEREST
Date of Institution : 23.09.2014
Date of reserving Judgment : 25.05.2015
Date of pronouncement : 27.05.2015
Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 1 of 8
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This Judgment shall dispose off the suit for recovery of
Rs.1,22,482/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 14.5% per
annum filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff is a body
corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1959 having its
Central Office at Nariman Point, Mumbai and having several branches
throughout India including one Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at 23,
First Floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The present suit has been filed
through Sh. Rakesh Arora, the Deputy Manager / City Case Officer in the
aforesaid Recovery Branch of the plaintiff bank who has been competent
and authorized to do so as per the General Regulations no.76 and 77 of
the State Bank of India Act.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant employed as a
Constable in the RPSF, had approached the Kishan Ganj, Delhi Branch of
the plaintiff bank for grant of financial assistance under XPress Credit /
Personal Loan Facility of the Plaintiff Bank. Proofs of his employment and
Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 2 of 8
identification were submitted before sanction of loan. In pursuance of the
said request, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a personal loan for
Rs.1,50,000/ to the defendant against several documents such as the
Loan Application, Arrangement Letter dated 22.10.2007, Personal Loan
Agreement dated 22.10.2007, Consent Clause and Irrevocable Letter of
Authority.
4. The said loan was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly
installments of Rs.3,987/ each plus interest in terms of agreement. The
rate of interest applicable was agreed at 0.25% below that SBAR which
was then 12.75% per annum thus bringing the interest rate applicable to
12.5% per annum.
5. Since the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline
by making the regular payments of installments, his loan account bearing
no.30263321817 was declared a "Non Performing Asset" (NPA) on
01.10.2010. The defendant had acknowledged his liability to pay the outstanding dues by making intermittent deposits to his loan account and also by signing the revival letter dated 11.10.2013 and thereafter also by giving an undertaking dated 03.10.2013. However, when the defendant Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 3 of 8 failed to fulfill his obligations, vide recall notice dated 26.08.2014, the defendant was called upon to repay the entire loan amount. It is further stated that as per the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank, the defendant is liable to pay a total amount of Rs.1,22,482.70/ to the plaintiff which he had not paid. Hence, the present suit.
6. The defendant was duly served and had even appeared before the Court on 25.11.2014, however, he did not file the written statement within the time prescribed and as such, vide order dated 06.01.2015 his right to file the same was closed.
7. Plaintiff was then called upon to lead plaintiff's evidence.
8. In plaintiff's evidence, Sh. Rakesh Arora, Deputy Manager / City Case Officer of the plaintiff bank was examined as PW1. In his examination in chief, PW1 mostly reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW1 placed reliance on the following documents :
1) True copy of Gazette Notification dated 27.03.1987 as Ex.PW1/1.
2) Original letter dated 10.10.2007 as Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 4 of 8 Ex.PW1/2.
3) Certificate dated 09.10.2007 as
Ex.PW1/3.
4) Original Loan Application Form as
Ex.PW1/4.
5) Original Arrangement letter dated
22.10.2007 as Ex.PW1/5.
6) Original Personal Loan Agreement dated
22.10.2007 as Ex.PW1/6.
7) Original Consent Clause as Ex.PW1/7.
8) Original Irrevocable Letter of Authority as
Ex.PW1/8.
9) Original Revival Letter dated 11.10.2010
as Ex.PW1/9.
10) Original Letter written by the defendant
dated 03.10.2010 as Ex.PW1/10.
11) Copy of Legal Notice dated 26.08.2014 as
Ex.PW1/11.
12) Original Postal receipts dated 28.08.2014
as Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/13.
Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 5 of 8
13) Original courier receipt dated 28.08.2014
as Ex.PW1/14.
14) Original received AD Card as Ex.PW1/15.
15) Original received envelop along with AD
Card as Ex.PW1/16 (colly).
16) Certified copy Statement of Account as
per the Bankers Book Evidence Act as
Ex.PW1/19.
17) Certificate of Accrued Interest dated
17.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/20.
18) Certificate of Accuracy of Computer Data
as Ex.PW1/21.
19) Photocopy of Office Identity Card of the
defendant as Mark "A".
20) Photocopy of the Salary Slip of the
defendant as Mark "B".
9. The defendant has not crossexamined the said PW1 and accordingly the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 6 of 8
10. I have heard final arguments on behalf of the plaintiff as the defendant had also not appeared to advance the final arguments. I have also perused the case file.
11. In the present case, the defendant had appeared in the court but he had chosen not to file his written statement within the time prescribed and to contest the suit of the plaintiff. Since, the defendant has chosen not to challenge the suit of the plaintiff either by filing his written statement within time or by crossexamining the witness of the plaintiff, the evidence led by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. The PW1 has placed on record the original documents in support of contentions of the plaintiff Bank. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff.
12. The present suit is within the jurisdiction of this Court since all the loan documents have been executed in Delhi by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant has given one of his residential addresses as of Delhi in the documents as submitted to the plaintiff at the time of applying for the loan. The present suit is within the period of limitation as the suit Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 7 of 8 has been filed on 23.09.2014 i.e. within three years of the defendant executing the undertaking dated 03.10.2013 thereby extending the period of limitation in accordance with Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
13. The plaintiff has been able to prove its case against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore, decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,22482/ i.e. the balance outstanding in the books of account of the plaintiff as on the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest @ 14.5% per annum which does not appear to be inappropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to the said rate of interest on the principal amount outstanding due from the defendant. The interest is calculated simply and annually. Plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Jitendra Pratap Singh) on 27th Day of May,2015 Civil Judge09, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi This Judgment consists of 8 pages and all the pages are duly signed by me. Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 8 of 8 CS No. 624/14 SBI Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena 27.05.2015 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, suit of the plaintiff is decreed along with the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Jitendra Pratap Singh) CJ09(C)/Delhi/27.05.2015 Suit No.624/14 State Bank of India Vs. Girdhar Singh Meena Page No. 9 of 8