Delhi District Court
Bank Of India vs M/S Comfortplus Distribution Pvt. Ltd on 9 July, 2020
1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, DISCTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)02, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. CS (Comm) No. 908/2019 Bank of India A body Corporate, Constituted by and under The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 Having its Head Office at: Star House, C5, GBlock, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai400051. and having its Branch Office at: 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. .........Plaintiff Vs. 1.
M/s Comfortplus Distribution Pvt. Ltd.
Through Shri Ajay Gupta, Director C/o Arch Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Property No. 4, WZ271 A, Nawada Extension, Opposite Metro Pillar No. 717 Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi110059.
2. Shri Ajay Gupta S/o Shri Ram Kishan Gupta BG396, Third Floor, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110063.
....... Defendants
Date of Institution : 04.06.2019
Date of arguments : 09.07.2020
Date of Judgment : 09.07.2020
ExParte Judgment
In brief, the case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that the CS (Comm) No. 908/2019 Page 1 of 4 2 plaintiff is a Bank and a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act. Shri Munshi Lal, Senior Branch Manager is the authorized representative of the plaintiff and has been authorized to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. The defendant No. 1 is a company which is maintaining a current account No. 603220110000858 with the plaintiff bank since 09.05.2016. The defendant No. 2 is one of the Director of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 requested the plaintiff bank to grant Temporary Overdraft in the said current account to enable to meet their urgent business commitments. The said defendants assured the plaintiff bank to clear the dues on account of Temporary Overdraft within Twenty days. The plaintiff bank acceded to the request of the defendants and allowed Temporary Overdraft of Rs. 6,00,000/ in the said current account for a period of Twenty days on 19.12.2017. The defendants executed the necessary documents with the plaintiff bank to avail the said Temporary Overdraft. On 19.12.2017, the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ was transferred from the debit of aforesaid account of defendant No. 1 to the account of M/s Arch Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vide cheque No. 26201. However, the defendants failed to honour their commitments to pay the overdraft amount along with interest. As per the guidelines of RBI, the account of defendants was classified as Non Performing Asset. The plaintiff bank issued a legal notice dt. 27.12.2018 by speed post and the same was served on the defendants. Despite the notice, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding amount in the aforesaid current account. The defendants are liable to pay Rs. 7,95,612/ to the plaintiff as per the statement of account. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of amount of Rs. 7,95,612/ along with interest @ 19.25% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount. Despite service of summons through publication, the defendants has not appeared and so the defendants have been proceeded exparte.
CS (Comm) No. 908/2019 Page 2 of 4 32. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined Shri Munshi Lal, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff as PW1. He has proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the documents as under;
a) Power of Attorney as Ex. PW1/1
b) The Resolution dt. 15.12.2017 as Ex. PW1/2.
c) Demand Promisory Note dt. 19.12.2017 as Ex. PW1/3
d) The Composite Declaration/undertaking (L516) as Ex. PW1/4.
e) Copy of cheque bearing No. 026201 dt. 14.12.2017 for Rs. 6,00,000/ as Ex. PW1/5.
f) The legal notice as Ex. PW1/6.
g) Statement of account as Ex. PW1/7, certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/8.
h) Calculation sheet of interest as Ex. PW1/9
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff through videoconferencing and perused the record. PW1 who is the authorized representative of the plaintiff has supported the case of the plaintiff in his evidence. The documents which are proved on record from the evidence of PW1 also supports the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff goes unchallenged and unrebutted. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1.
Keeping in view the nature of loan transaction, business practices in the market, it is deemed just and proper to allow interest @ 10% per annum pendentelite and future in favour of the plaintiff.
In my view, from the evidence on record, the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant.
4. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiff is entitled to Decree of Recovery in the sum of Rs. 7,95,612/ with interest @ 10% p.a. against the CS (Comm) No. 908/2019 Page 3 of 4 4 defendants (jointly as well as severally), from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization along with cost against the defendants.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta)
Court today i.e. 09.07.2020 District Judge
(Commercial Court)02
Central District,
Tis Hazari, Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 908/2019 Page 4 of 4