Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: composition deed in Uco Bank vs Nandni Kumari on 29 July, 2022Matching Fragments
1. Plaintiff bank has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 10,08,215/- with pendentelite and future interest and cost against the defendant.
CS (Comm.) No. 413/2020 UCO Bank vs Nandni Kumari Page 1 of 132. Following is the relevant brief factual matrix of the case of plaintiff. Plaintiff is a bank and a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies Act (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings), 1970 having one of its branch at 40, Community Centre, Naraina, New Delhi. Being Manager of said branch Mr. Kewal Kumar signed, verified and filed plaint being authorized to do all acts and deeds in terms of Power of Attorney executed by management in his favour. Defendant was maintaining account no. 10270510000908 with plaintiff bank and was in need of funds for enhancing her business of manufacturing Upper of Trolley Bags and Laptop Bags in the name and style of M/s N B India of which she was the proprietor and approached plaintiff bank for grant of loan/credit facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna (PMMY) vide loan application dated 22/12/2017. Term loan facility was sanctioned by plaintiff bank to defendant on 10/01/2018. Defendant availed the same as the money was utilized by her in the account maintained with plaintiff bank. On 11/01/2018, defendant executed various documents such as Composite Deed of Hypothecation, Demand Promissory Note (A-1), (A-3) and Letter of Waiver (A-47) and also created security in favour of plaintiff by way of Hypothecation of Stocks (existing and future). As per the terms and conditions of Term Loan Facility, defendant was to make regular payments in the account and the interest was charged @ 8.60% per annum with monthly rests. Assurance was also given by defendant to plaintiff to keep the repayments regular as per the conditions of sanction. Defendant failed to maintain the discipline of the account and as such plaintiff was constrained to declare the account as NPA, after successive defaults were committed by defendant, as per RBI Guidelines. The account of defendant was declared NPA on 31/03/2019 and as such the entire outstanding amount in the said account as on 31/03/2019 and interest accrued thereafter has become payable. The last transaction and deposit was made by defendant in the loan account on 29/11/2018. As on 31/03/2019 an amount of Rs. 10,08,215/- (interest charged upto 31/12/2018) was outstanding in the account and defendant is liable to pay the same alongwith interest accrued in the account from 01/01/2019 at the contractual rate i.e., @ 8.60% per annum. Defendant had illegally and unlawfully withheld the the legitimate amount of plaintiff, so defendant is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount. Legal notice dated 21/04/2019 vide speed post dated 25/04/2019 was sent by plaintiff asking defendant to pay the outstanding amount in her account. Despite service of said legal notice, defendant failed to clear the over due amount in the account. Even pre institution mediation could not start as required fees for mediation were not deposited after defendant appeared before New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDDLSA) as per Non Starter Report dated 15/01/2020. Resultant was this suit.
5. In the affidavit of admission/denial of documents of plaintiff, defendant admitted the original loan application. Therein defendant also admitted her signatures on documents (i) loan sanction letter; (ii) original composite deed of hypothecation; (iii) original demand promissory note; (iv) original documents in form (A-3) dated 11/01/2018; (v) letter of waiver (A-47) dated 11/01/2018 but denied their contents.
6. No replication was filed by plaintiff despite opportunities.
9. Written arguments were filed by the parties through their Counsel. Oral arguments were also addressed by Ld. Counsel for the parties. I have perused the record and has considered the rival contentions put forth by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
10. PW1 Sh. Kewal Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex PW1/A in evidence and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No Documents Exhibit
Attorney
Application Form
PMMY dated
22/12/2017 in the
name of N. B India
letter dated
10/01/2018 of UCO
Bank Naraina New
Delhi-1027 in the
name of M/s N B India
4. Original Composite Ex PW1/4
Deed of
Hypothecation dated
11/01/2018 of plaintiff
bank in the name of N
B India, proprietor
defendant
Note dated 11/01/2018
given by M/s N B
India (proprietor
defendant) in the name
of plaintiff bank
6. Form of plaintiff bank Ex PW1/6
for enclosing of
demand promissory
Note for Rs.
10,00,000/- given by
NB India (proprietor
defendant) to plaintiff
bank along with Non
Judicial paper
7. Letter of waiver given Ex PW1/7
by N B India
(proprietor defendant)
statement of account
Bankers Books of
Evidence Act
10. Legal notice dated Ex PW1/10
21/04/2019 given by
Advocate of plaintiff
bank to N B India
(proprietor defendant)
11. Speed post receipts for Ex PW1/11
service of legal notice
dated 21/04/2019
Finding on issue no. 1 Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 10,08,215/- from defendant ? OPP
14. It is admitted case of defendant that she had applied for loan vide Loan Application Ex PW1/2 dated 22/12/2017. PW1 in his deposition has proved (i) original sanction dated 10/01/2018 Ex PW1/3; Original Composite Deed of Hypothecation dated 11/01/2018 Ex PW1/4; Demand Promissory Note dated 11/01/2018 Ex PW1/5; Form enclosed with Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 10,00,000/- given by NB India (proprietor defendant) to plaintiff bank Ex PW1/6; Letter of waiver Ex PW1/7; certified statement of account Ex PW1/8; Certificate under Bankers Books of Evidence Act Ex PW1/9; Legal notice dated 21/04/2019 given by Advocate of plaintiff bank to N B India (proprietor defendant) Ex PW1/10 and postal receipts for the same Ex PW1/11.