Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Shri Pradeep Gupta on 3 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: JSCC: ASCJ: GUARDIAN JUDGE
(NORTH EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 449/11
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0304232011
Canara Bank
A Body Corporate Constituted under
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertakings) Act 1970 and having its
Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore &
Branches amongst others at,
Gyan Deep Vidya Bhawan, C Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi110053.
........... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Shri Pradeep Gupta
s/o Shri R.N. Gupta
r/o C1/150, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi110053.
......... Defendant.
Date of institution of the suit : 07.10.2011
Date on which order was reserved: 31.05.2012
Date of decision : 03.07.2012
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,89,990/ ALONGWITH THE INTEREST AND
COSTS.
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit filed by the
plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a Body Corporate and Shri
Pawan Kumar Mittal is the Branch Manager and a Constituted attorney of the plaintiff
bank. It has been further stated that the defendant was maintaining a saving bank
account no. CA2947101003689 (SB3689) with the plaintiff bank since 24.02.2005. It
has been further stated that the plaintiff bank provided various customer services and
facilities to the defendant such as issuance of Cheque Books, Statement of Accounts,
Passbooks, Temporary Overdraft Facility at the request of the defendant. It has been
further stated that the defendant used the Temporary Overdraft Facility to get his issued
cheques cleared and paid from the said saving bank account, on presentment, despite
insufficient balance in the said account. It has been further stated that on 05.10.2009,
the defendant had presented two cheques i.e. one bearing no. 288039 for the sum of Rs.
2,50,000/ drawn on Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and another bearing no. 790841
drawn on Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, both favouring him and requested the plaintiff
bank to grant a temporary overdraft against these two cheques by way of credit in his
saving bank account. It has been further stated that the plaintiff bank considered his
request and the credit of these cheques i.e. the total amounting to Rs.2,56,000/ was
given on the very same date i.e. on 05.10.2009 to the defendant in his saving bank
account at his request. It has been further stated that accordingly, a Temporary Overdraft
of Rs. 2,56,000/ in total was given to the defendant in his said saving bank account on
05.10.2009by the plaintiff bank against the aforesaid two cheques. It has been further stated that the credit balance in the aforesaid saving bank account of the defendant was Rs.2,56,027/ on 05.10.2009 but the said two cheques were returned dishonoured on line on 07.10.2009. It has been further stated that the defendant had taken away these two cheques alongwith the returning memos from the plaintiff bank under the garb of initiation of criminal proceedings or recovery proceedings for the said two cheques. It has been further stated that however, on 25.01.2010, the defendant again approached the plaintiff bank and the defendant again presented these two cheques. It has been further stated that the plaintiff bank had credited an amount of Rs.2,56,000/ against the said two cheques on the same date i.e. on 25.01.2010 in his saving bank account at the request of the defendant. It has been further stated that however, the said two cheques were returned dishonoured due to "Funds Insufficient" on 26.10.2010 from the respective banks. It has been further stated that the abovesaid transaction resulted into a debit balance and over due of Rs.2,55,764.37 on 26.02.2010 in the saving bank account of the defendant being outstanding and repayable by the defendant. It has been further stated that the defendant promised to deposit the entire overdue within 60 days but the defendants failed to do the same despite various letters, reminder and the legal notice dated 20.09.2011. It has been further stated that the defendant is liable to pay the said amount alongwith the interest @ 18.5% per annum compounded monthly. It has been further stated that an amount of Rs.2,89,990/ upto the date of the filing of the suit and other charges is found due and payable by the defendant as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank in the regular course of banking business duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act and hence the present suit.
On the basis of the abovesaid allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for an amount of Rs.2,89,990/ alongwith the pendetelite and future interest @ 18.5 % per annum compounded monthly against the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit as well.
2. Despite the service, the defendant failed to appear in the court and as such, the defendant was proceeded exparte by this court vide orders dated 28.11.2011.
3. Towards the exparte PE, the plaintiff has examined its Branch Manager Shri Pawan Kumar Mittal as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. He has filed on record the Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 01.06.1995 is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), the original Account opening form of account no. 2947101003689 dated 24.02.2005 alongwith copies of address proof and ITR are Ex. PW1/2 (colly), the original specimen signatures card dated 24.02.2005 bearing the signatures and photograph of the defendant is Ex.PW1/3, the original deposit slip dated 23.01.2010 is Ex. PW1/4, certified copy of statement of account (certified under Banker's Books Evidence Act) is Ex. PW1/5 (colly), computerized sheet of returned cheques as maintained in the clearing branch New Delhi of the plaintiff bank is Ex. PW1/6, copy of the legal notice dated 20.09.2011 is Ex. PW1/7, its original postal receipt is Ex. PW1/8, the composite statement of account alongwith certificate under Banker's Books Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/9 (colly).
4. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
5. From the various documents placed on record by the plaintiff bank, such as the current account opening form Ex. PW1/2, it is apparently clear that the defendant has maintained the saving bank account with the plaintiff bank. As per the statement of account duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act Ex. PW1/5 on record, it is apparently clear that an amount of Rs.2,81,873.37 is due against the defendant on 27.08.2011. The plaintiff has also placed on record the photocopy of the power of attorney, the copy of the legal notice etc. As stated by me herein above that despite the service, the defendant failed to appear and he was proceeded exparte by this court on 28.11.2011. As such, the testimony of PW1 is uncontroverted and unchallenged. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. As such I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case.
6. In the light of the above discussion, I hereby pass a decree for an amount of Rs. 2,89,990/ alongwith the interest @ 18.5% per annum simple in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader after payment of the additional court fees, if any. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR)
on this 03rd day of July 2012 JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge (NE)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.