Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Pawan Kumar on 18 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024
(State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar)
CNR No. DLSE01-013390-2024
State Bank of India
94, Ramesh Market,
Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110 065.
......Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Suchita Dixit and
Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocates
Versus
Sh. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Satyapal
R/o Near Dharamshala, Rewari,
Mahendragarh, Haryana-123 029.
Also at:-
CISF No.104491085
Through Commandant,
SSG VIP Security CISF,
Greater Noida, Surajpur Lakhnawali,
U.P.-201 306.
......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 18.12.2024
Arguments concluded on : 11.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.03.2025
JUDGMENT:
(1) Plaintiff filed the present suit against defendant for seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.11,11,367/-(Rupees Eleven Raj Kumar Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Seven only) as on Tripathi 11.12.2024 along with pendente lite & future interest @ 10.30% Digitally signed by Raj Kumar per annum and cost of the suit.
Tripathi Date: 2025.03.18 14:11:07 +0530CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 1 of 9 Brief facts of the case:-
(2) Plaintiff is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act No.XXIII of 1955) having its Central/Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. It is a body with perpetual succession and it can sue and be sued in its own name. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of banking, which has various local head offices including one local head office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi and various branches throughout Delhi, including one situated at 194, Ramesh Market, Amar Colony, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110 065, which is under the administrative control of local head office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi. (3) Defendant approached and requested to plaintiff bank at its Siddharth Extension Branch, New Delhi for grant of financial assistance by way of personal loan of Rs.11,23,000/-
vide loan application dated 26.05.2022 under "Xpress Credit Loan scheme". Being a salaried individual, defendant furnished his employment details as defense personnel, thereby ensuring the full and effective repayment of loan amount of Rs.11,23,000/- together with interest in terms of loan agreement dated 26.05.2022.
(4) In consideration of grant and sanction of Xpress Credit Facility and to secure the repayment of all the monies, interest and other charges accruing thereon, defendant executed Raj the following necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank on Kumar 26.05.2022:-
Tripathi I) Personal Loan Agreement.
Digitally signed II) Arrangement Letter. by Raj Kumar Tripathi III) Irrevocable Standing Instructions given by borrower. Date: 2025.03.18 14:11:16 +0530 IV) Consent Form.
CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 2 of 9 (5) All the above documents were filled in, read over and explained to defendant, who signed the same voluntarily and consciously after understanding the implication and delivered the same to the plaintiff bank.
(6) On execution of relevant documents by defendant, plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.11,23,000/- by opening loan account no.41008821162. Defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest as per arrangement/sanction letter in 72 equated monthly installments (EMI) of Rs.20,975/-each. The first installment commenced from the month following the month of disbursement of loan and subsequent installment on or before the same date of each succeeding month till repayment of entire loan with interest and other unpaid penalty, costs, charges and expenses. He had also agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount @ 10.30% per annum and in the event of default in payment of any installment or any irregularity in the loan account, penal interest @ 2% per month over the stipulated rate of interest with monthly rests for irregular amount and overdue period.
(7) Thereafter, defendant further applied online for grant of personal loan under MC-DL-XPRS-CRDIT-INSTA TOP scheme. Pursuant to said request of defendant, plaintiff bank sanctioned a personal loan under "MC-DL-XPRS-CRDIT-INSTA TOP scheme for a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- on 23.08.2023 vide loan account no. 42200719355. The said amount was disbursed into Raj defendant's saving account no.31421057404. Kumar Tripathi (8) Plaintiff stated that after availing the said loan Digitally signed facilities, defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date:
of loan agreement and became irregular and defaulter in making 2025.03.18 14:11:25 +0530 CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 3 of 9 the payment. Consequently, the said loan accounts became highly irregular in terms of repayment. The defendant, despite repeated requests and reminders, failed to regularize his account. Accordingly, the loan accounts of defendant were classified as Non-Performing Asset (in short 'NPA') on 25.07.2024 as per the guidelines/directives of Reserve Bank of India. (9) Plaintiff claims to have been maintaining loan accounts in normal course of banking business and all entries relating to the loan accounts of defendant are duly reflected therein. As per the books of account, there is a debit balance of Rs.9,20,985/- in loan account no.41008821162 and Rs.1,90,381 in loan account no.422007191355 as on 11.12.2024. Details of amount payable by defendant along with up to date interest are given below:-
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Loan The rate The date from The total The total The daily rate
Accounts at which it is amount of amount at which
which claimed & interest without interest accrues
interest date to which claimed to interest after that date
is it is calculated the date of claimed to and total
claimed calculation the date of outstanding
calculation (including
arrears penalty
amount up to
date )
41008821162 10.30% 25.07.2024 to 67,073/- 8,39,499.81 9,20,985.81
11.12.2024 +14,413
(arrears
penalty)
42200719355 12.15% 25.07.2024 to 13,393/- 1,73,911/- 1,90,381/-
11.12.2024 +3,077/-
(Arrears
penalty)
Total (Round off) Rs.11,11,367/-
Raj
Kumar (10) Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 10.30% per annum
Tripathi on the outstanding amount from 25.07.2024 calculated on Digitally signed by Raj Kumar 11.12.2024. Thus, the total accrued interest comes to Rs.67,073/-Tripathi Date: 2025.03.18 14:11:35 +0530
CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 4 of 9 + Rs.14,413/- (Arrears Penalty) in account no.41008821162 and Rs.13,393/- accrued interest @ 12.15% and Rs.3,077/- (arrears penalty) in loan account no.42200719355. It is submitted that no interest has been charged and applied after the loan accounts of defendant were classified as NPA on 25.07.2024. However, plaintiff is entitled to interest till repayment/realization of the dues.
(11) On persistent default committed by defendant, plaintiff bank recalled the outstanding loan amount inter-alia by serving legal demand notice dated 27.07.2024. However, despite service of notice, defendant did not clear the dues of plaintiff bank. (12) Having no other option, plaintiff filed an application for Pre-Institution Mediation before South-East District Legal Services Authority on 01.08.2024 in terms of Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, despite issuance of notices, defendant neither appeared nor gave any intimation to participate in mediation process scheduled for hearing on 06.09.2024 and 20.09.2024. Therefore, the process of mediation was treated as non-starter vide Non-Starter Report dated 24.09.2024.
Defendant is ex parte:-
(13) Pursuant to summons issued to defendant, he was served on 06.01.2025. However, despite service, he did not appear to contest the suit.
(14) As defendant did not file written statement to the suit Raj within stipulated time, opportunity given to him to file written Kumar Tripathi statement was closed on 10.02.2025. He was also directed to be Digitally signed by Raj Kumar proceeded ex parte.Tripathi Date: 2025.03.18 14:11:44 +0530
CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 5 of 9 Evidence of plantiff (15) In support of its case, plaintiff has examined Mr. Deepak Kumar, Branch Manager/AR of plaintiff bank as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated in the plaint.
(16) Before coming to the testimony of plaintiff's witness, the documents relied upon by PW1 are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:-
S.No. Details of Document Exhibit No.
1. Gazette Notification published on 02.05.1987 Ex.PW1/1
2. Copy of loan application form dated Ex.PW1/2
26.05.2022 along with copy of PAN Card, (colly.)
Aadhaar Card, Employee ID Card and salary slips
3. Original Consent-cum-Letter of undertaking Ex.PW1/3
4. Original Personal Loan Agreement Ex.PW1/4
5. Original Agreement Letter Ex.PW1/5
6. Original Irrevocable Standing Instructions Ex.PW1/6 given by borrower
7. Original Consent Form Ex.PW1/7
8. True copy of long enquiry and short enquiry Ex.PW1/8 (colly.)
9. True copy of Loan Account Statement of Ex.PW1/9 account no.41008821162 along with discharge quote
10. True copy of Loan Account Statement of Ex.PW1/10 account no.422007191355 along with discharge quote
11. Original Certificate of Interest Ex.PW1/11 Raj 12. Copy of legal notice dated 27.07.2024 along Ex.PW1/12 Kumar with postal receipts Tripathi 13. True copy of tracking reports and original Ex.PW1/13 and returned sealed envelopes Ex.PW1/14 Digitally signed by Raj Kumar 14. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) of The Ex.PW1/15 Tripathi Date: Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 63 2025.03.18 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 14:11:52 +0530 CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 6 of 9
15. Original Non-Starter Report Ex.PW1/16 Findings and Observations (17) I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.
(18) PW1 Mr. Deepak Kumar, Branch Manager/AR of plaintiff, in his affidavit of evidence, Ex.PW1/A has deposed and corroborated about the same facts as mentioned in the plaint. He has proved the documents mentioned in para no.16 of the judgment.
(19) Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) is the loan application form submitted by defendant for grant of personal loan of Rs.11,23,000/-. He signed consent/undertaking (Ex.PW1/3) for sanction of loan. On execution of relevant documents by defendant, plaintiff bank sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.11,23,000/-. Defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in terms of arrangement letter, Ex.PW1/5. Ex.PW1/6 is the irrevocable letter of authority/standing instruction given by defendant for deduction of EMIs from his salary account. Defendant failed to abide by terms and conditions of arrangement letter, Ex.PW1/5 and thus, defaulted in making repayment of loan to the plaintiff bank. As per statement of account, Ex.PW1/9, an amount of Rs.8,39,499.81 is the principal outstanding amount payable by defendant to plaintiff in respect of loan account Raj no.41008821162. Ex.PW1/10 is the statement of loan account Kumar Tripathi no.42200719355 and as per the same, an amount of Rs.1,73,911/- Digitally signed is the principal amount payable by defendant. Defendant despite by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date:
service of legal demand notice dated 27.07.2024, Ex.PW1/12 2025.03.18 14:12:02 +0530 CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 7 of 9 (colly.) has failed to clear the dues of plaintiff bank. (20) The deposition of PW1 as mentioned in his affidavit of evidence, Ex.PW1/A has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as defendant did not turn up to cross-examine plaintiff's witness in respect of the depositions and averments made by him. Thus, in view of uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of plaintiff, there is no reason to doubt his version as deposed by him in his evidence affidavit, Ex.PW1/A. (21) As per para no.20 of the plaint, all the loan documents were executed at the office of plaintiff bank at Amar Colony, New Delhi branch which is within the jurisdiction of this court. The loan amount was/is repayable to the plaintiff bank. Thus, the whole cause of action has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the dispute between the parties. (22) Plaintiff in para no.19 of the plaint has averred that defendant had executed and signed various loan documents in favour of plaintiff bank on 26.05.2022 and 23.08.2023. The loan accounts of defendant have been classified as NPA on 25.07.2024.
The defendant is reported to have made last payment in his loan accounts on 06.04.2024. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for seeking recovery of its dues on 18.12.2024. Thus, the suit filed by plaintiff is well within limitation. (23) The subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute as defined u/s 2(1)(c) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Raj Kumar Thus, this court is competent to adjudicate upon the dispute Tripathi between the parties. Digitally signed by Raj Kumar (24) For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I am of Tripathi
Date: 2025.03.18 the view that on the basis of averments made in the plaint and the 14:12:10 +0530 CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 8 of 9 documents proved on record, plaintiff has succeeded to prove its case.
(25) Accordingly, suit of plaintiff is decreed with cost. Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,11,367/- along with agreed rate of interest i.e. 10.30% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18.12.2024 till actual realization of the amount.
(26) Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
Raj Kumar (27) File be consigned to Record Room. Tripathi Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.03.18 14:12:16 +0530 Announced in the open court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI) Dated: 18.03.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-08, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS (COMM.) No. 3958/2024 (State Bank of India vs. Pawan Kumar) Page No. 9 of 9