Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Rajesh Kuma on 3 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE - 03/SED,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. ISHA THAKUR
CS SCJ No. 775/24
In the matter of:-
STATE BANK OF INDIA
A body corporate constituted under
The State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955)
Having its Corporate office at:
State Bank Bhawan,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400021, and
one of its local Head office(s) at:
11 Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001 and
one of its branch at:
State Bank of India, Branch Badarpur(415),
Mathura Road, New Delhi.
Through its Chief Manager,
Sh. Satyendra Kumar Jha ...Plaintiff
Vs.
MR. RAJESH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Babu Lal
R/o 144/6, Minto Bridge, Railway Colony,
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
Rouse Avenue, Delhi - 110002.
Also at:
C/o Northern Railway Headquarter
Employee no- 50300752332
Designation- Hospital Assistant,
Department- Medical,
Northern Railway, Central Hospital,
Basant Lane, RK Road, Railway Colony,
Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055. ...Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 29.05.2024
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 07.03.2025 Digitally
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 03.04.2025 signed by
ISHA
ISHA THAKUR
CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 1 of 8 THAKUR Date:
2025.04.03
16:39:35
+0530
EX- PARTE JUDGMENT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
1.The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,15,147/- with penal interest as on date 14.03.2024 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and interest @ 12% per annum with monthly rests during the pendency of the suit till its realization and costs.
2. The Plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955 and the present suit was filed through Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha, who is employed as Chief Manager and has been authorized to file and prosecute the present suit vide Gazette notification dated 27.03.1987. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who is stated to be a defaulter towards the transaction in question.
3. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance under the personal segment advances personal loan Xpress Credit loan scheme and accordingly, the defendant had applied for the same through loan application at the branch of the plaintiff. It is averred by the plaintiff that in consideration of the above loan facility as required, the defendant had executed documents of loan on 16.10.2018 in favour of the plaintiff bank and thereafter, plaintiff bank had agreed to sanction the financial facility for Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant under the personal loan - Xpress Credit Loan Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 2 of 8 THAKUR Date:
2025.04.03 16:39:42 +0530 Scheme on 16.10.2018 vide loan account bearing no. 38016878410 in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs. 11,123/- with interest chargeable @ 12% per annum, however, defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and defaulted in payment of installments and the loan account was declared as NPA on 14.02.2024.
4. That compelled by the behaviour of the defendant a legal demand notice dated 16.03.2024 was also served upon the defendant to pay of the outstanding amount along-with interest. However, the notices remained unanswered.
5. It is prayed that defendant is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,15,147/- with penal interest as on date 14.03.2024 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant to get with expenses and interest @ 12% per annum with monthly rests during the pendency of the suit till its realization and costs. Hence, the present suit.
6. Summons of the suit were sent, which stood served upon the defendant by way of ordinary process. Despite service, defendant failed to appear and contest the present suit. Accordingly, the proceedings against the defendant were set ex-parte on 14.11.2024.
7. Thereafter, ex-parte plaintiff's evidence was led.
8. To prove its case, plaintiff examined its AR as PW1 as the sole witness who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents: -
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 3 of 8 THAKUR Date:
2025.04.03 16:39:47 +0530
1. Copy of Gazette Notification i.e. Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Documents of Loan Application of defendant i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly).
3. Letter of Arrangement dated 16.10.2018 i.e. Ex.PW-1/3.
4. Agreement of Loan dated 16.10.2018 i.e. Ex.PW-1/4.
5. SI Report dated 16.10.2018 i.e. Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Copy of Demand Notice dated 01.05.2019 i.e. Ex.PW-1/6 is now de-exhibited and marked as Mark A.
7. Copy of Request Letter of defendant executed on 20.06.2019 i.e. Ex.PW-1/7 is now de-exhibited and marked as Mark B.
8. Office copy of Legal Demand Notice alongwith Postal Receipts i.e. Ex.PW-1/8.
9. Certified copy of Statement of Account of defendant i.e. Ex.PW-1/9.
10. Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.PW-
1/10.
11. Certificate of accrued interest i.e. Ex.PW-1/11.
9. Since none appeared for the defendant when the plaintiff was to be examined, the evidence was recorded ex-parte. Thereafter, plaintiff closed its ex-parte evidence on 04.02.2025, and the matter was posted for ex-parte final arguments.
10. During the course of final arguments, the Ld. counsel for plaintiff relied on the aforesaid documents and the unrebutted averments made in the plaint as even written statement was not filed by the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the entire case of the plaintiff is based on original application form and the same stands proved in the deliberate absence of the defendant.
11. Heard the ex-parte final arguments advanced by counsel CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 4 of 8 for plaintiff. This court has carefully perused the evidence on record in light of the pleadings of the plaintiff and considered the oral submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
12. To prove its case, the plaintiff has placed reliance upon Documents of Loan application of defendant, Letter of Arrangement dated 16.10.2018 and Agreement of loan dated 16.10.2018, which are exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2(Colly.), Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4 respectively, to showcase that defendant had obtained a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- and that it has only been partly paid as mentioned in statement of account i.e. Ex.PW-1/9. Perusal of the statement of account reveals that an amount of Rs.1,12,171.22/- is due to the plaintiff from the defendant. The statement of account is duly supported by a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW-1/10). Plaintiff has also relied on a certificate of accrued interest (Ex.PW-1/11) to show that an amount of Rs.2,976/- is due as penal interest @12% p.a. on the due amount, calculated upto 14.03.2024. The factum of maintenance of open running account has not been disputed and there is no written statement available on record to know the alternate version of the defendant. The court can therefore safely rely on the documentary evidence, more so when the evidence has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
13. The service of legal demand notice dated 16.03.2024 (Ex.PW-1/8) is deemed to be proved from the accompanying original postal receipt. Since the loan Digitally signed by ISHA CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 5 of 8 ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.04.03 16:39:51 +0530 amount was not received despite service of legal notice, it stands established that such an amount remained wholly unpaid. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Eco Lab I.MC.N Vs. Eco Labs Limited, 2011 (185) DLT 664, wherein it was held that if defendant has failed to cross examine the plaintiff, the evidence of plaintiff is to be presumed to be correct. In view of the fact that the version of the plaintiff has remained unrebutted, whatever he has produced on record is accepted as correct.
14. The contents of the demand notice dated 16.03.2024 (Ex.PW-1/8) can be deemed to be admitted by the defendant. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Abdul Gaffar Vs. DDA, 2001, RLR, 249. In any case, since the defendant defaulted in his appearance despite being fully aware of the pendency of the present suit, it can be safely presumed that he has no defence to offer.
15. The suit of the plaintiff is also within limitation as the defendant made the last payment of Rs. 1,280/- on 14.02.2024 towards part liquidation of liability and the present suit is instituted on 29.05.2024.
16. In view of the foregoing reasons, it stands established on preponderance of probabilities that a sum of Rs. 1,15,147/- is due to the plaintiff (Rs. 1,12,171.22/- as principal and Rs. Rs.2,976/- as penal interest) against the loan. It is Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 6 of 8 THAKUR Date:
2025.04.03 16:39:55 +0530 pertinent to mention that the transaction entered into between the parties was a commercial transaction. It is well settled that in a commercial transaction by the public financial institutions, the contractual rate of interest is the rule and any departure is a rare exception. Moreover, Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is a bar to reopening by the court, the contractual rate of interest entered into between the commercial banks and its debtor, if the interest charged by the bank is consistent with the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is also to be noted that under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court in a money decree may award interest exceeding six per cent, on a commercial transaction but not beyond the contractual rate. Hence, the contractual rate of interest i.e. 12% p.a. stands accordingly allowed.
17. The plaintiff, having incurred expenses in pursuing the present litigation, is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
Relief
18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,15,147/- as principal along-with interest @ 12% per annum from the institution of the suit till the realization of the principal amount.
19. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Digitally
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR THAKUR Date:
CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 7 of 8 2025.04.03 16:39:59 +0530
21. File be consigned to Record-Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ISHA ISHA THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.04.03
16:40:02 +0530
Pronounced in the open (Isha Thakur)
Court on 03.04.2024 Civil Judge-03, South East,
Saket Court, New Delhi.
CS SCJ No. 775/24 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR PAGE - 8 of 8