Delhi District Court
(Through Sh. Ghan Shyam Anand vs Sh. Alok Kumar on 24 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ROHIT GULIA, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI
(WEST)2
SUIT NO.134/2000
Unique Case ID No 02401C0160832000
Dena Bank
Having its Head Office at Makers Towers 'E', Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005
and branch office amongst other places at M36, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -
110001 (Through Sh. Ghan Shyam Anand, Principal Officer and Attorney holder
of the Bank).
........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.Sh. Alok Kumar B102, Rosewood Apartments, Mayur Vihar (PHI Ext.), New Delhi - 110091
2. Dr. Amar N. Pandya B102, Rosewood Apartments, Mayur Vihar (PHI Ext.), New Delhi - 110091 Also At : Riteman Services India Pvt. Ltd.
7, Centre Market, Pocket - II, Mayur Vihar, PHI, New Delhi91 ....................DEFENDANTS Suit No.134/2000 Page No.1/6 2 Suit filed on - 08/05/2000 Judgment Reserved on 29/01/2014 Date of decision - 24/02/2014 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.59,800/ (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand And Eight Hundred Only ) EXPARTE JUDGMENT: This is a recovery suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for a sum of Rs.59,800/.
1. The facts in brief relevant for the judgment as per plaint are that the plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970. That Sh. Ghan Shyam Anand, Principal Officer of the plaintiff bank is duly authorised by the bank to institute the suit and to sign and verify all necessary documents.
It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff bank for certain credit facilities for purchase of photocopier machine for the purpose of meeting his professional needs and also offered the personal guarantee of defendant no.2.
It is further submitted that considering the request of defendant no.1 a Consumer Term Loan of Rs.70,000/ was sanctioned to him which is to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,000/ each alongwith interest @ 14.5% per annum with quarterly rests against the hypothecation of the photocopy Suit No.134/2000 Page No.2/6 3 machine so purchased by the defendant no.1.
It is further submitted that defendant no.2 vide a letter of continuing guarantee dt.24/04/1996 stood guarantor of defendant no.1 and also accepted all the liability of defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff bank.
It is further submitted that in consideration of the loan the defendant no.1 hypothecated with the bank the photocopier machine, etc. so purchased by him as security for the due repayment of the loan amount alongwith interest and other charges. It is further submitted that a terms loan account was opened in the name of defendant no.1 with M36, Connaught Circus Branch of the plaintiff bank and a pay order No.238693 dt.26/04/1996 for a sum of Rs.88,750/ was issued in favour of M/s M.S. Computers for the purchase of Photocopier Machine which was duly encashed.
It is further submitted that after taking the loan the defendant no.1 did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to keep up his commitments and the account became irregular from the very inception itself. That the defendant no.1 had lastly deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/ on 03/09/1998 in his account and thereafter not amount has been deposited. The defendant no.1 deliberately failed to remit/repay/adjust the debit balance/outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff bank made repeated request, send reminders and its staff contacted the defendant personally for payment/adjustments/remitting of outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank but the defendants continuously defaulted and failed to liquidate the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank.
Suit No.134/2000 Page No.3/6
4 It is further submitted that finally the plaintiff bank was forced to recall the advance and served a legal notice dt.23/05/1999 upon the defendants calling upon the defendants to pay the outstanding dues of the plaintiff bank, but to no effect.
It is further submitted that the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount i.e. Rs.59,800/ inclusive interest calculated upto 03/05/2000.
Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 59,800/ alongwith interest.
2. The defendant no.2 was duly served with the summons and as none appeared on behalf of defendant no.2, he was proceed with exparte vide order dt. 15/02/2000. Further, defendant no.1 was also served through his mother as well as as by way of publication also. But as the defendant no.1 also failed to appear, he was proceeded with exparte vide order dt.22/10/03.
3. In exparte evidence in order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank got examined two PWs i.e. Ms. Saroj Dhall as PW1 and Sh. G.S. Anand as PW2 who reiterated and reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the plaint on oath. Certain documents were also exhibited which are as under : MarkA is the photocopy of Power of Attorney. The general letter of lien and set off for the borrowing arrangements dt.24/04/96 is Ext. PW1/2. The letter of continuing guarantee is Ext. PW1/3. Ext. PW1/4 is receipt dt.01/05/96 for a sum of Rs.88,750/. The acknowledgment letters of defendant no.1 dt. 06/08/96 and 18/09/96 are Ext. PW1/5 and PW1/6 respectively. The legal Suit No.134/2000 Page No.4/6 5 notice is Ext. PW1/6A. The certified copy of term loan account of defendant no. 1 is Ext. PW1/7.
The application for credit facility is Ext. PW2/1. The process note is Ext. PW2/2. The sanction letter is Ext. PW2/3. The terms loan agreement dt. 24/04/96 is Ext. PW2/4. The photocopy of the letter dt.26/06/2000 is marked as MarkA.
4. The testimony of PWs remained unchallenged and unrebutted and I find no reason to disbelieve the same. The requisite documents have been duly proved as per Evidence Act. The plaintiff has proved the service of the notice upon the defendants and as the same was not replied, an adverse inference may safely be drawn against the defendants. As the defendants no.2 stood as guarantor he is also liable to repay the amount alongwith the defendant no.1. The suit is filed within period of limitation and the same has been duly proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
5. In view of above, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants who shall be liable jointly and severally and the following reliefs are awarded in favour of plaintiff :
1. Money decree for a sum of Rs.59,800/ (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand And Eight Hundred Only) as principal amount alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of institution of suit till the date of realisation of the amount.
2. Costs of the suit.
Suit No.134/2000 Page No.5/6
6 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
(ROHIT GULIA) Civil Judge (West)2, Delhi Pronounced in the open court on 24/02/2014.
Suit No.134/2000 Page No.6/6