Delhi District Court
M/S Dr. R. N. Gupta Technical vs Associate India Financial on 13 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SNIGDHA SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL05 TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI
Suit No.64/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Dr. R. N. Gupta Technical
Education Society, 107/9, Kishan Garh,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi110070.
Through its founder
Sh. D.K. Gupta ........Plaintiff
Versus.
1. Associate India Financial
Services Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
2. Deepak Mathur
Senior Manager/ Prop./Partner
M/s Associate India Financial
Services Pvt. Ltd,
Both 3LSC, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi110062. .......Defendants
Date of Institution: 25.10.2002
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 13.08.2014
Date of Judgment : 13.08.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 87,395/ AND FOR MANDATORY
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide a suit for recovery of Rs. 87,395/ and for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 1 of 22
2. The brief facts of the case as per the plaintiff are that defendants are engaging in the business of providing loan for new and old vehicle. Plaintiff who is the owner of the Maruti car bearing no. HR26 J/5601 was in need of some money and approached to the defendants for seeking loan of Rs. 1 lac that on the discussion with the defendants the defendants advised to the plaintiff that plaintiff can avail loan facilities under a scheme of "used automobiles", further defendant was also advised that for giving loan facilities of Rs. 1 lac, the plaintiff have to give twelve post dated cheques of Rs. 12,485/ each, further defendants also stated that plaintiff has to give the original registration certificate (R/C) of vehicle no. HR26 J/5601 for getting done endorsement on it from the concerned registration authority (RTA) mentioning that the car is hypothecated to the defendants, further they also stated that before advancing loan plaintiff has to sign defendant's agreement including some other documents. It is further submitted that plaintiff on the assurance of advancing loan of Rs. 1 lac issued twelve post dated cheques of Rs. 12,485/ each drawn on Allahabad Bank in favour of defendant no. 1 and also hand over registration certificate of vehicle no. HR26J/5601 for endorsement and also signed agreement including other blank printed performa as per direction of defendants for getting loan of Rs. 1 lac . It is further submitted that after Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 2 of 22 receiving twelve post dated cheques, R/C of vehicle and got signed agreement etc. the defendants promised to the plaintiff that loan amount would be sanction soon and Rs. 1 lac will be handed over to the plaintiff very soon after verifying and completing official formalities for sanctioning the loan. It is, pertinent to mention here that defendants also got endorsed on the R/C of vehicle HR26 J/5601 from the concerned authority that the vehicle HR26J/5601 from the concerned authority that the vehicle is hypothecated with the defendants and the R/C still lying in the possession of the defendants. The defendants always promised to the plaintiff that they are going to released Rs. 1 lac very soon, but till date defendants do not released the said amount of Rs. 1 lac. The plaintiff shocked and surprised when instead of receiving Rs. 1 lac from the defendants, the plaintiff received a notice dated 12.10.2001 issued by advocate of defendants mentioning that plaintiff is a defaulter of monthly installment in respect of loan account no. 366921 further in the notice it was also mentioned that plaintiff in case already made payment he was directed to get in touch with the defendants, the plaintiff immediately approached to the defendant and stated that since defendant has not released any single penny against any loan how the plaintiff become defaulter of any installment, the plaintiff also discussed the said matter with the Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 3 of 22 defendants and requested that either they should return post dated cheques, R/C of vehicle and complete signed paper or hand over the loan amount on this the defendants feel guilty and assured that due to some official mistake, it was happened and defendants promised that they will take proper steps for the same and will also informed to the plaintiff very soon. The plaintiff of the basis of assurance given by the defendants did not take any action against the defendants with a hope that defendants will not commit any illegal act against the plaintiff and rectify their mistake, but all in vain and a similar notice was again issued to the plaintiff in the month of November, 2001. It is further submitted that after receiving notice issued in the month Nov. 2001 plaintiff again approached to defendant and stated that it is very surprising that defendants without releasing any loan i.e. Rs. 1 lac unnecessary harassing the plaintiff by issuing notices stating that plaintiff is a defaulter of monthly installment or loan amount on this defendants feel very sorry and stated that due to mistake of staff the said things was happened and promised that in future such types of mistake will not repeat. It is further submitted that in the month of January plaintiff very shocked and surprised when he came to know that defendants not only issued notices to the plaintiff, but they have also encashed some postdated cheques of the plaintiff. The plaintiff immediately Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 4 of 22 written a letter to defendant dated 04.02.2002 and requested to stop encashing post dated cheques in future with request to return the cheques amount received by he defendants after encashing cheques already and for deletion hypothecation from R/C of the car. The plaintiff also requested for giving details of encashed cheques as well as detail of loan for which plaintiff applied, but defendants again did not bothered, resulting plaintiff again written to the defendants on 09.04.2002. It is further submitted that defendant instead of giving reply of letter dated 04.02.2002 and 09.04.2002 or returning post dated cheques as well as amount received by the defendants, defendants again issued a notice dated 04.05.2002 stating that plaintiff is a defaulter of hire/purchase monthly installments with directions that if plaintiff failed to pay Rs. 77,090/ within 48 hours form the date of receipt of the notice, defendants will terminate the hire purchase agreement and enterlay take possession of the assest as per the terms of the agreement, the said notice Suri & Company Advocates received by the plaintiff on 13.05.2002 the plaintiff. The said notice was replied by the plaintiff vide replied dated 22.05.2002, but defendants again did not bothered then plaintiff has to written a letter again to the defendants vide letter dated 11.07.2002 with clear instructions that if defendant do not settle the matter amicably, the plaintiff has to file FIR of Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 5 of 22 criminal offence and plaintiff has to approached to the court of law for justice. The said letter was also sent by Speed Post, but defendants again did not bothered then plaintiff having no option has to report this matter to the S.H.O. P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. The said complaint dated 19.07. 2002 was also duly received by Police P.S. Ambedkar Nagar on 22.07.2002, but Police also failed to take any appropriate action. It is further submitted that Defendant despite number of personal visit, telephonically contact and number of letters and reply etc. sent to the defendants, defendants instead of settling the dispute, again issued a legal notice to the plaintiff mentioning similar story (the said notice was received by the plaintiff on 16.08.2002) with a malafide intention and with an intention to harass plaintiff and grab the already encashed cheques amount. The defendants totally failed to returned the encashed cheques amount. R/C of the vehicle after deleting endorsement and returning remaining unpaid cheques. Hence, plaintiff have no option accept to approach this Hon'ble Court for recovery of Rs. 87,395 with interest alongwith seeking permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants as R/C of the vehicle no. HR26J/5601 is still lying in the illegal possession of the defendants and defendants already got endorsement regarding hypothecation from the concened RTA. It is further Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 6 of 22 submitted that during the said period defendants succeed encashed seven cheques of the plaintiff valued Rs. 12,448/ each (the amount Rs. 87,395/) and five cheques are still lying in the illegal possession of the defendants. Hence, this suit as plaintiff already requested and written to the defendants and has also made a complaint to S.H.O. P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, but all in vain. It is further submitted that in the first week of October, 2002 the plaintiff again telephonically contacted to the defendants and also visited the office of the defendant and requested to returned amount of signed papers alongwith remaining five cheques, but defendants openly refused to return the same and in other hand they have threatened that they will lift the vehicle forcibly and neither will return Rs. 87,395/ nor remaining five cheque nor signed papers. They further threatened if plaintiff try to take any action against the defendants, the plaintiff as well as their well wishers have to suffer with bad consequences. Defendants further threatened to take steps against the plaintiff. Defendants cheated the plaintiff and have already received Rs. 87,395/ in a fraudulent manner, R/C and five cheques including signed paper are still in illegal possession of the defendants. The plaintiff already approached to the Police P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, but they totally failed to take any appropriate action against the defendants. Hence, the present suit is filed by Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 7 of 22 the plaintiff.
3. On the other hand the defendants in their WS have contended that Sh. D. K. Gupta has neither enclosed Power of Attorney nor Board Resolution, authorizing him to institute. Plaintiff is himself guilty of suppressing and twisting actual facts before this Court. The plaintiff approached to the defendants for availing loan facility against the used vehicle. Thereafter, the Defendants disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/ vide cheque bearing No. 775963 dated 26.04.2001, alongwith letter issued to the Dealer i.e. ABM Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The said cheque was also later on presented for encashment and the amount was withdrawn from the accounts of the defendants bank on 30.04.2001. As per the statement of account dated 10.12.2002, the plaintiff itself deposited one installment on counter of the defendant, against the bounced cheque to the defendants on 11.09.2001. It clearly indicates that the Plaintiff was very much aware about the said disbursal of loan amount. The plaintiff availed loan facility from the defendants on th 27 April, 2001 and the present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff in October, 2002. It clearly indicates that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff subsequent to the disbursal of the loan and after the enjoyment of financial facility for more than one year. The present suit has filed by the plaintiff in order to escape himself Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 8 of 22 from the outstanding amount Rs. 81,483/ i.e. Due towards the defendants as on 10.12.2002. The aforesaid facts clearly indicates that the Plaintiff approached before this Court with unclean hands. It is further submitted that despite the receipt of demand notices, sent by the defendants to the plaintiff in order to regularise its account, the plaintiff filed the present suit in order to evade himself from the above said outstanding. It clearly shows that the Plaintiff has deliberately violated benevolent terms and conditions of the Loancum hypothecation agreement dated 12.04.2001 executed between the parties. It is further submitted that there is no subsisting cause of action prevails against the defendants. It is further submitted that after the acceptance of the Loan Application, the Plaintiff himself executed LoancumHypothecationcum GuaranteeAgreement on 12.04.2001, thereby availed loan facility of Rs. 1,32,000/ from the defendants. The disbursal of the loan was th made to the plaintiff on 27 April, 2001 and as per the repayment schedule of clause 11 of the agreement, the plaintiff expressly agreed to repay the loan amount in 12 equated monthly installments, of which each installments shall consist of Rs. 12,485/ only, It is pertinent to mention here that the monthly installment was settled @ Rs. 12,485/ but later on at the request of the plaintiff, the amount of installment was reduced to Rs. 12,482/ and the excess Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 9 of 22 amount i.e. Rs. 3/ in each installment has been adjusted towards the bounced cheque charges which was due against the plaintiff. In regard to the said Agreement the plaintiff had duly executed Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Demand promissory Note and Declaration Note in favour o the Defendants. The strictly compliance of the terms of LoancumHypothecationCumGuarantee Agreement is the essence of the all loan documents. As per the statement of account dated 10.12.2002 maintained by the defendants under ordinary course of business, the plaintiff was a regular defaulter from the very beginning itself. As on 10.12.2002, the plaintiff has paid 6 installments, however, most of the post dated cheques were dishonoured by the banker of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that despite clearance of the 6 cheques of the plaintiff they never raised any dispute regarding disbursal of the loan amount. The plaintiff was itself very much aware that strict compliance of the repayment schedule is the essence of granting loan. Besides, the knowledge of the same the plaintiff failed to repay the installments to the Defendants in time. Further the defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff which are made in his plaint and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. In his replication the plaintiff has reaffirmed the Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 10 of 22 contents in the plaint and denied all the allegation made by the defendant in their written statement and further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
5. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order dt. 04042004.
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 87,395/ as prayed? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interests, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an equitable relief of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an equitable relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
v) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form as claimed? OPD
vi) Whether the suit has not been verified properly as claimed? OPD
vii) Whether the suit is barred by provision of U/o 7 rule 11 CPC?
OPD
viii) Relief
6. To prove his case plaintiff has examined Sh. Devender Gupta as PW1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit PW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 11 of 22 relied upon the document:
i) Resolution passed in favour of Sh. Devendra Gupta is Ex. PW1/1.
ii) Copy of Purchase documents of vehicle No. HR26J/5601 along with Insurance Cover is Mark A.
iii) Copy of R.C. vehicle No. HR26J/5601 is Mark B.
iv) Copy of notice dt. 12102001 is Ex. PW1/4.
v) Copy of notice sent in November, 2001 is Ex. PW1/5.
vi) Letter dt. 04022002, 09042002 sent to the defendant is Ex. PW1/6 & 7.
Vii) Letter dt. 08032002 and 04052002 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/8 & PW1/8A.
Viii) The reply dt. 22052002 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant is Ex. PW1/9,
ix) Copy of letter dt. 11072002 sent by plaintiff to the defendant is Ex. PW1/10.
x) The Complaint dt. 19072002 is Ex. PW1/11.
xi) The account statement of Allahabad Bank is Ex. PW1/12. The PW1 was also crossexamined by the Ld. counsel for the defendant. During crossexamination the PW1 was also confronted with documents Ex. PW1/D1 & D2.
7. On the other hand the defendant has examined Sh. Shailesh Kumar Sinha as DW1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 12 of 22 Ex. DW1/A. In his affidavit the DW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in WS and relied upon the documents as under:
i) Power of Attorney dt. 11042013 is Ex. DW1/1.
ii) The Loan Application Form, LoancumHypothecationcum GuaranteeAgreement, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Demand Promissory Note and Declaration dt. 12042001 are Ex. DW1/2 to DW1/6 respectively.
Iii) The statement of account dt. 10122002 is Ex. DW1/7. The DW1 was also crossexamined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
8. I have heard Ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the record & gone through the relevant provision of law.
9. My issue wise finding is as under:
10. Issue No. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 87,395/ as prayed? OPP Issue No. 5 Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form as claimed? OPD Issue No. 7 Whether the suit is barred by provision of U/o 7 rule 11 CPC? OPD Issue no. 1, 5 and 7 being interrelated are being taken up and decided together.
Before delving upon the rival contentions of the parties it is Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 13 of 22 worthwhile to discuss the evidence led by the parties.
11.PW1 Sh. Devender Kumar Gupta stated in his crossexamination that he is founder of the plaintiff society and there are 11 member of the society. The resolution in his favour was passed by all the member of the society. All the member had signed the minute book when the resolution was passed. He signed the loan documents at the office of the plaintiff when the representative of the defendant visited. He gave the original RC of the vehicle as well as certain other documents at the time of execution of loan documents along with 12 post dated cheuqes to the representative of the defendant. The cheques were given towards loan repayment. When he visited the office of the defendant, the representative of the defendant had shown him original RC having the hypothecation in favour of the defendant. The vehicle was in his possession after signing of the documents of loan. The defendant had got encashed 7 posted dated cheques issued by the plaintiff.
12. DW1 Sh. Shailesh Kumar Sinha stated in his crossexamination that vide Ex. DW1/1 two person including DW1 were empowered by the defendant and the said two persons can act severally and jointly in the name of the defendant. DW1 joined the defendant company in the year 2013. As per Ex. PW1/D2 the loan was to be disbursed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself approached to the company directly Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 14 of 22 for the loan. The Cheque of Rs. 1,32,000/ was issued by the defendant in the name of M/s ABM Financial Consultant Ltd. and not in the name of the plaintiff.
13.It is an admitted fact between the parties that the loan documents was executed on behalf of the plaintiff for taking loan from the defendant. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the loan amount was disbursed to the plaintiff or not. The burden to prove that the loan amount was disbursed to the plaintiff was on the defendant. The case of the defendant in this regard is that the loan was disbursed to the plaintiff through the dealer ABM Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd in the sum of Rs. 1,32,000/ vide cheque no. 775963 dated 26/4/2001 which was encashed on 30/4/2001. Firstly, it has not been proved on record by the defendant that how ABM Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd was the dealer and how and when the plaintiff approached through the dealer ABM Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd. DW1 has stated in his crossexamination that the plaintiff did not approach the defendant through a dealer and later further stated that he was not working with the defendant at the relevant time and thus cannot state whether the plaintiff approached through a dealer or not. Therefore, the defendant should have examined a person who had knowledge of the present case and was employed with the defendant at the relevant time or some person from ABM Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 15 of 22 Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd. The defendant has failed to prove that ABM Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd is related to the plaintiff. Also, the loan agreement/contract was entered directly by the plaintiff with the defendant then the loan amount should have been directly disbursed to the plaintiff. Furthermore, it has not been proved by the plaintiff that ABM Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd had given the loan amount to the plaintiff.
14.As per the case of the plaintiff the 12 post dated cheques were taken by the defendant at the time of execution of the loan documents, which is a normal market practice of the financial institutions, and out of it 7 cheques have been encashed by the defendant. This fact has been admitted by the defendant in its statement of account.
15.In view of the aforesaid discussion, since loan amount was never received by the plaintiff from the defendant and the defendant having encashed the post dated cheques issued by the plaintiff towards the loan which was never disbursed to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 87,395/ as principal amount from the defendant.
These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16.Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interests, if so, Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 16 of 22 at what rate and for what period? OPP The plaintiff has also claimed the interest for the presuit period from February 2002 till October 2002 and pendentelite and future interest on the on the said decreetal amount of Rs. 87, 395/. In view of findings in issue no. 1 above, the plaintiff is entitled to the interest from 01/02/2002 till actual realisation of the decreetal amount. According to me, considering the current market rate the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 9 % p.a. on the decreetal amount from 01/02/2002 till the actual realization on the decreetal amount. This issue is decided accordingly.
17.Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an equitable relief of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP The plaintiff has also prayed for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release the registration certificate of Maruti car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601 after deleting/cancellation of hypothecation endorsement from the concerned RTA or issuing no objection certificate in favour of the plaintiff for cancellation of hypothecation endorsement from RTA and to return the cheques bearing nos. 008780 dated 21092001, 008784 dt. 21012002, 008785 dt. 22022002, 008786 dt. 21032002 and 008787 dt. 21 042002 for Rs. 12, 485 each drawn on Allahbad Bank, Gurgaon issued in favour of the defendants and with the directions to either Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 17 of 22 return the signed documents or treat the same as cancelled.
18.The case of the plaintiff is that at the time of execution of the loan documents the defendant was handed over 12 post dated cheques and original Registration Certificate of the Maruti car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601 for endorsement of hypothecation. On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that the 12 post dated cheques were issued by the plaintiff, however, the original Registration Certificate of Maruti car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601 was not deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant. Considering the findings in issue no. 1 above as well as the admission on the part of the defendant in the written statement of issuance of post dated cheques by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in respect of the post dated cheques. Thus, a decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with the directions to the defendant to return the cheques bearing nos. 008780 dated 21092001, 008784 dt. 21012002, 008785 dt. 22 022002, 008786 dt. 21032002 and 008787 dt. 21042002 for Rs. 12, 485 each drawn on Allahbad Bank, Gurgaon issued in favour of the defendants.
19.Furthermore, in view of the findings in issue no. 1 above a decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with the directions to the defendant to return Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 18 of 22 the signed documents loan application form dt. 12042001, loan cumhypothecationcum guarantee agreement dt. 12042001, Irrevocable power of attorney dt. 12042001, Demand promissory note and declaration dt. 12042001 to the plaintiff.
20.A decree of cancellation of the documents i.e. loan application form dt. 12042001, loan cumhypothecationcum guarantee agreement dt. 12042001, Irrevocable power of attorney dt. 12042001, Demand promissory note and declaration dt. 12042001 is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in view of findings in issue no. 1 above.
21.As regards the original Registration Certificate of the Maruti Car, it is not proved by the plaintiff that the original Registration Certificate is lying with the defendant and even in the documents of loan it has not been mentioned so. Thus, a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release the registration certificate of Maruti car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601 after deleting/cancellation of hypothecation endorsement from the concerned RTA cannot be passed. However, in view of the findings in issue no. 1 above since the defendant has failed to show that the loan amount was disbursed to the plaintiff, a decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with the directions to the defendant to issue no objection certificate in favour of the Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 19 of 22 plaintiff for cancellation of hypothecation endorsement from RTA. This issue is decided accordingly.
22.Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an equitable relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP The plaintiff has further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from lifting or taking over the possession of the car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601. In view of findings in issue no. 1 above, the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant from lifting or taking over the possession of the car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
23.Issue no. 6 Whether the suit has not been verified properly as claimed? OPD The contention of the defendant in this respect is that the suit has not been filed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff.
Admittedly, the plaintiff is a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. As per S. 6 of the Societies Registration Act, a suit can be filed by or against a society in the Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 20 of 22 name of the President, Chairman or Principal secretary or trustees as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society. The PW1 has placed on record Ex. PW1/1 which is a resolution passed by the plaintiff society in favour of PW1 Dr. R.N. Gupta, founder of the plaintiff society. Nothing has been brought on record by the defendant to disprove the fact that a resolution was passed in favour of PW1 for the purpose of filing, verifying and instituting the present suit. Furthermore, Dr. R. N. Gupta is a founder of the plaintiff society and thus the suit has been filed, verified and instituted by an authorised person. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
24.Relief:
In view of the forgoing discussion, a decree for the recovery of Rs. 87,395/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 9 % p.a. on the decreetal amount from 01/02/2002 till the actual realization on the decreetal amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Further, a decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with the directions to the defendants to return the cheques bearing nos. 008780 dated 21092001, 008784 dt. 21012002, 008785 dt. 22022002, 008786 dt. 21032002 and 008787 dt. 21042002 for Rs. 12,485 Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 21 of 22 each drawn on Allahbad Bank, Gurgaon issued in favour of the defendants and further the defendants are also directed to return the signed documents i.e. loan application form dt. 12042001, loan cumhypothecationcum guarantee agreement dt. 12042001, Irrevocable power of attorney dt. 12042001, Demand promissory note and declaration dt. 12042001 to the plaintiff.
Further, a decree of cancellation of the documents i.e. loan application form dt. 12042001, loan cumhypothecationcum guarantee agreement dt. 12042001, Irrevocable power of attorney dt. 12042001, Demand promissory note and declaration dt. 1204 2001 is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Further, a decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from lifting or taking over the possession of the car bearing no. HR 26 J 5601.
Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced & signed in the ( Snigdha Sarvaria)
open court on 13.08.2014 Civil Judge/Central05/Delhi
Suit No. 64/2013 Page No. 22 of 22