Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Rajesh Sood on 4 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE05 :NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Civil Suit No. 55529/16
In the matter of :
State Bank of India,
Through Stressed Assets Recovery Centre (SARC),
RACPC, Ground Floor,
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi110001 ..................Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Sood
S/o Shri Trilok Chand Sood
R/o B30A, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
Also At :
M/s Siddhartha Motors,
385, Chhattarpur Village,
Opp: Tivoli Garden,
New Delhi110074. .....Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 22.03.2014
Date of arguments : 13.03.2018
Date of judgment : 04.04.2018
JUDGMENT :
1.The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,55,587/ with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiffbank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, (Act CS No.55529/16 Page 1 of 5 State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Sood No.XXIII of 1955) having its central office at Madama Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. It is engaged in the business of banking. Sh. V K Mittal, has signed and verified the plaint and has instituted the present suit on behalf of the plaintiffbank. He is well conversant with the facts of the case on the basis of records of the plaintiffbank maintained in its regular course of business. The defendant approached the plaintiff for Term Loan under Car Loan Scheme for financial assistance. The request of the defendant was accepted by the plaintiff and, consequently, a car loan for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was sanctioned on 17.7.2012 and car loan for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was lent and released by the plaintiff and availed by the defendant on 17.7.2012 as per his requirements under the terms and conditions therein the Terms & Conditions of Car Loan/Arrangement Letter and other documents executed by the defendant.
2.1. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in order to secure the car loan, sanctioned and disbursed by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant created a first charge in favour of the plaintiff by way of hypothecation of the secured asset together with all its components, accessories, attachments etc. The defendant agreed to repay the entire loan amount to the plaintiff in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.13,120/ each till the entire loan with the interest per annum with monthly rests is fully repaid. Defendant agreed to repay the first equated monthly installment from the month of August 2012 and the subsequent installments on or before the same date of each succeeding month thereafter till the entire loan is fully repaid with interest and other penalty costs, charges and expenses.
CS No.55529/16 Page 2 of 5State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Sood 2.2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant made payment of the certain Equated Monthly Installments as agreed and the same have been credited to the loan account as and when received by the plaintiff and defendant repaid the installment of loan lastly on 25.1.2014. The defendant in breach of the Agreement/agreed arrangement failed and neglected to repay the installments as and when due. On persistent defaults, the plaintiff served the defendant with a legal notice dated 23.12.2013 but the defendant paid no heed to the same. Plaintiff has prayed that suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
3. Defendant was served in the present case through publication in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 29.09.2016. However, he did not appear in the court whereupon he was proceeded ex parte on 03.08.2017 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
4. Plaintiff in support of its case has examined A K Chauhan, Manager as PW1. PW1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint. He has deposed that he is well acquainted with the facts of the present case and is competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings, affidavits etc in the present case as per the General Regulations No. 76 and 77 of the SBI. PW1 is the substituted authorized representative of the plaintiff bank in place of Sh. V K Mittal. He has proved the aforesaid General Regulations No.76 and 77 as Ex.PW1/1; proforma invoice as Ex.PW1/2; Retail invoice as Ex.PW1/3; car loan application form submitted by the defendant as Ex.PW1/4; LoancumHypothecation Agreement dated 17.7.2012 as Ex. PW1/5; Arrangement Letter as Ex.PW1/6; vehicle delivery letter dated 17.7.2012 as Ex.PW1/7; Disclosure as Ex.PW1/8; Operation Letter dated 11.7.2012 as ExPW1/9; legal notice dated 23.12.2013 as Ex.PW1/10; postal CS No.55529/16 Page 3 of 5 State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Sood receipts as Ex.PW1/11 (colly.); statement of account duly certified under the Banker's Book Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/12; Certificate of interest as Ex.PW1/13 and Certificate u/s 2A (b) and 2A (c) r/w S.65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/14.
5. I have heard Sh. Mukesh Ranjan, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. I have gone through the record.
6. The present suit was filed on 22.03.2014. The sanctioned loan amount was Rs.6 lakhs. The defendant agreed to repay the entire loan amount to the plaintiff in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.13,120/ each till the entire loan with the interest per annum with monthly rests is fully repaid. It was further agreed by the defendant that said loan was to be repaid by him with interest @1.25 above SBAR thereby making the effect rate to 11.25 % per annum with monthly rests which is subject to change in revision/change in SBAR/in case of default. Further, as per clause 14 of the loancumhypothecation agreement it was agreed by the defendant that if any installment due hereunder is not paid on due date in the manner set out in clause 6/7 of the agreement of the Bank to accept repayment of the loan by installments shall at the option of Bank forthwith determine and the whole balance of the said loan unpaid at the date of such default shall immediately thereupon become payable to the bank.
7. From the perusal of evidence on record, I am of the opinion that plaintiffbank has proved its case against the defendant. The suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs.5,55,587/ (Rs. Five lakhs, Fifty five thousand, five hundred eighty seven only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 11.25% per annum with monthly interest till realization.
CS No.55529/16 Page 4 of 5State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Sood Deficient court fees, if any, be deposited. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated and announced in (PRAVEEN KUMAR) open court today ie on 04.04.2018. Additional District Judge05, New Delhi District , Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CS No.55529/16 Page 5 of 5State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Sood