Delhi District Court
C S. No.: 446/12 "Pnb vs . Ashok Sharma" on 27 November, 2013
C S. No.: 446/12 "PNB Vs. Ashok Sharma"
IN THE COURT OF SH.GAUTAM MANAN:SCJ/RC
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
PNB Vs. ASHOK SHARMA
Order on Leave to Defend Application
27.11.2013
1.Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff are that defendant is a proprietor of M/s Swastik Tent & Caterers and was granted crash credit facility/ loan of Rs. 3,10,000/- vide sanction letter dated 01.08.2010 by the plaintiff bank. To secure the loan/ cash credit, the defendant executed hypothecation agreement and loan/ cash credit agreement dated 02.08.2010. After execution of the above said documents, the facility was availed by the defendant through the operation of cash credit account no. 04913008700000242 till it got exhausted. However, the defendant regularly breached the terms and conditions of the payment and the plaintiff bank was forced to declare account of the defendant as the irregular & NPA.
Order Page 1 of 4
C S. No.: 446/12 "PNB Vs. Ashok Sharma"
2. The plaintiff several times called upon the defendant to regularize his account and in response of the letters of the plaintiff the defendant came to the bank premises and acknowledged the balance confirmation vide letter dated 11.02.2012. The defendant even thereafter failed to fulfill the financial commitment and as on 31.03.2012 there stood an outstanding balance of Rs. 2,41,011.50 against the defendant. The plaintiff in his plaint has claimed that the defendant is now under liability to pay a sum of Rs. 2,62,045.50/- to the plaintiff bank which is inclusive of interest calculated up to 30.09.2012 and plaintiff be directed to pay the future and pendent-lite interest @ 15.5% per annum to the plaintiff.
3. The summons of the suit was served on the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant entered his appearance and the summons for judgment were issued on him pursuant to which the defendant has filed the present application seeking leave of the court to contest the present suit.
4. The defendant in his application has not disputed the grant of cash credit facility to him and has also not disputed the utilization of the facility by him. The defendant has submitted that the plaintiff has failed to calculate the actual amount and has knowingly kept mum about the installments already paid by the defendant. It is stated that the applicant has paid the maximum installments which have been concealed by the plaintiff bank.
Order Page 2 of 4
C S. No.: 446/12 "PNB Vs. Ashok Sharma"
5. In its reply, the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has miserably failed to raise any triable issue nor has disclosed any defense to obtain leave to defend. It is further submitted that the defendant in his entire application seeking leave to defendant has not disputed the fact that he availed finance/loan facilities from the plaintiff bank or he had signed the loan agreement and other related documents. Further, it is submitted that defendant's only defense is that the plaintiff has failed to calculate the actual amount and has knowingly kept mum about the installments already paid by the defendant but no document has been placed by the defendant in this regard.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. The defendant has not disputed that the cash credit facility was advanced to him and has also admitted that he has not paid the entire loan amount back to the plaintiff. Once the defendant has admitted the receipt of the loan then the onus shifts upon him to establish that the loan stands repaid but no document/receipt have been placed on record by the plaintiff which contradicts the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank during course of its business.
8. The defendant has disputed the correctness of statement of account and has claimed that he has paid the maximum installments to the plaintiff bank but he has not filed any document to question the genuineness of the statement of account Order Page 3 of 4 C S. No.: 446/12 "PNB Vs. Ashok Sharma"
relied upon by the plaintiff bank. In absence of any document or receipt of the paid amount it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff has not based its suit on the correct statement of account and the payments given by the defendant are not reflected in it.
9. The defendant has admitted to have taken the cash credit facility and there is no document filed on the record by the defendant to challenge the correctness of statement of account. In these circumstances, I find that the defendant has failed to raise any ground to grant him the leave of the Court to contest the present suit. Accordingly, the application of the defendant stands dismissed. In consequence thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs. 2,62,045.50/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Forty Five and Fifty Paise Only) along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of the suit amount along with costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
SCJ/ARC:SOUTH WEST
DWARKA/NEW DELHI
27.11.2013
Order Page 4 of 4
C S. No.: 446/12 "PNB Vs. Ashok Sharma"
27.11.2013
Present: None.
Vide separate orders, the application of the defendant seeking leave to defend stands dismissed. In consequence thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the suit amount of Rs. 2,62,045.50/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Forty Five and Fifty Paise Only) along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of the suit amount along with costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN) SCJ/ARC:SOUTH WEST DWARKA/NEW DELHI 27.11.2013 Order Page 5 of 4