Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the UCO Bank Vs. Seela Devi defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,01,238/- (Rupees Two Lakh One Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eighty Only) alongwith interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 8.60% pa alongwith costs.

Brief facts

2. Brief facts of the present case, as averred in the plaint, are that the plaintiff bank i.e. UCO Bank is a Body corporate and is constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. As per plaintiff, the defendant was maintaining a Cash Credit Account having No. 10270510001127 with the plaintiff and defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for grant and sanction of a loan/credit facility of Rs. 2 lakhs under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna (PMMY) vide loan application dated 11.09.2018 for enhancing her business of Grocery Trading 'M/s Balaji Enterprises'. The loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank to defendant on 19.09.2018. As per the plaintiff, the defendant has availed the said loan after executing necessary documents such as composite deed of hypothecation, demand promissory note (A-1), leter of continuity (A-3), letter of waiver (A-47) & composite deed of hypothecation and also created security in favour of UCO Bank Vs. Seela Devi plaintiff by way of Hypothecation of Stocks & Book debts (existing & future). As per terms and conditions of Term Loan facility, defendant was to make regular payments in the account and the interest was charged @8.60% with monthly rests.

6. Thereafter, ex-parte PE was closed.

Arguments and Relief

7. I have heard the ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the record.

8. In the present case, as noted above, vide order dated 02.05.2023, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte and her defence was struck of for not filing the written statement. The plaintiff has inter alia proved on record copy of General Board resolution in favour of AR as Mark A ; Loan application as Ex.PW1/2; Sanction letter as Ex.PW1/3; Demand Promissory Note (A-1) as Ex. PW1/4; letter of continuity (A-3) as Ex. PW1/5; letter of waiver (A-47) as Ex. PW1/6; composite deed of hypothecation as Ex. PW1/7; Certified copies of statements of account and certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/8 (colly); Legal notice and postal receipt as Ex. PW1/9. The said evidence of PW1 stands unrebutted / unchallenged, as PW1 was not cross-examined by the said defendant. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of AR of the plaintiff / PW-1 recorded on oath in UCO Bank Vs. Seela Devi Court. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW1, documents exhibited/tendered in evidence by PW1 and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case against defendant on preponderance of probabilities.