Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL
SCJ-CUM-RC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
UCO Bank
Through Its Authorized Representative
Having Its Head Office at:
10 B.T.M. Sarani, in the town of Kolkata
And Its Former Branch Office At:
5100 Clock Tower, GT Road, Sabzi
Mandi Old, New Delhi, Delhi-110007 ….…. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Manik Chand Mishra
5100, Harphool Singh Building,
Circle Tower, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi-110007 .......... Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.01.2023
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 25.04.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 26.04.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.69,894/-
ALONGWITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Manik Chand Mishra Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
1. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case, as per his
plaint, are as follows:-
i). That the plaintiff is a body of corporate constituted
under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertaking), Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 10 B.T.M
Sarani, in the town of Kolkata and former branch office at 5100
Clock Tower, GT Road, Sabzi Mandi Old, New Delhi, Delhi-
110007.
ii). That the present suit is filed by the plaintiff bank
through its AR Mr. Raj Kumar, Senior Manager, who has been
duly authorized by the plaintiff bank to sign, verify, institute and
pursue the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank. However,
Sh. Rahul Dhatwalia was substituted as AR of the plaintiff bank
vide order dated 25.04.2024.
iii). That the defendant approached the plaintiff bank
and requested for the grant of term loan of Rs.75,000/- under the
Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna for improvement of his business.
The defendant promised to repay the loan within the terms and
conditions of the loan document and would repay the same in
time.
iv). That the plaintiff bank after duly considering the
request, sanctioned a sum of Rs.75,000/- as Term Loan Limit
vide Sanction letter dated 11.12.2019. The defendant has also
accepted all the terms and conditions of the sanction letter and
undertook to repay the same with its consonance. The defendant
No.1 also executed Demand Promissory Note dated 11.12.2019
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Manik Chand Mishra Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
in favour of the plaintiff bank. According to the loan agreement
executed, the defendant further undertook that he would pay rate
of interest @ 8.85% per annum.
v). That, however, despite assurances and undertaking
the defendant miserably failed to make the payment of his
liability towards the entire loan amount as required under the
loan documents and as per the terms and conditions of the said
loan. Therefore, the account of the defendant was declared as
Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.06.2022.
vi). That as per the statement of account maintained by
the plaintiff bank as per rules & practice norms of banking
business, an amount of Rs.69,894/- is found due outstanding on
the part of defendant which is liable to be paid with interest as
per the loan documents.
vii). That despite repeated requests when the defendant
failed to pay the outstanding amount, a legal notice dated
28.12.2022 was issued by the plaintiff bank calling upon the
defendant to make the payment of the outstanding amount.
However, despite the issuance and due service of the legal
notice, the defendant did not repay the outstanding amount.
Hence, the present suit.
2. Upon the institution of the suit, summons of the suit
for the appearance and settlement of the issues were also issued
to the defendant and which were also duly served upon him on
13.04.2023. However, despite due service of summons, the
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Manik Chand Mishra Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
defendant neither appeared and not did he file any written
statement. Consequently, vide order dated 04.07.2023, he was
proceeded as ex-parte. Thereafter, matter was fixed for ex-parte
plaintiff's evidence.
3. During ex-parte plaintiff's evidence, Sh. Rahul
Dhatwalia, the substituted AR of the plaintiff bank appeared and
deposed in the Court as PW-1. He has also relied upon the
following documents:-
i) The copy of Delegation of Power is Ex.
PW-1/1 (OSR).
ii) Copy of loan application form dated
11.12.2019 is Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR).
iii) Copy of the Sanction letter dated
11.12.2019 is Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
iv) The copy of agreement relating to the
term loan dated 11.12.2019 is Ex. PW-1/4
(OSR).
v) Copy of Form A-1 dated 11.12.2019 is
Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR).
vi) The copy of of Bank form A-47 dated
11.12.2019 is Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
vii) Copy of notice dated 29.12.2022 is Ex.
PW-1/7.
viii) Certified copy of statement of account
as per Banker Books of Evidence Act and
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is Ex.
PW-1/8 (colly. 6 in numbers).
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Manik Chand Mishra Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
4. The Court has already heard the ex-parte final
arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The
entire record is also perused.
5. As stated above, the plaintiff/PW1 has testified on
the same lines as stated in the plaint. On the other hand, as
already noted above, the defendant has failed to oppose the suit
of the plaintiff by filing his defence as no WS was filed by the
defendant despite sufficient opportunity. Further, the defendant
has also remained absent without any justified reason and even
did not avail the opportunity to crossexamine the plaintiff's
witness and as such has chosen not to rebut the testimony of the
plaintiff.
6. PW1 has also duly placed on record Ex.PW1/1
which shows that he has been duly authorized by the plaintiff
bank to depose in this case on its behalf. PW-1 has also duly
placed on record Ex.PW1/2 which proves that the defendant had
availed the term loan of Rs.75,000/- under the Pradhan Mantri
Mudra Yojana from the plaintiff bank. PW-1 has also duly placed
on record Ex.PW1/4 which shows that the defendant had signed
the term loan agreement. The service of legal demand notice
Ex.PW1/7 also stands duly proved.
7. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for
the court to not to rely upon the un-rebutted and un-controverted
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Manik Chand Mishra Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
Relief:
8. In view of the abovesaid material available on
record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is
held entitled to the recovery of Rs.69,894/- towards the entire
loan amount.
9. The plaintiff has further prayed for pendente lite and
future interest interest @ 8.85% per annum. Considering the
present facts and circumstances, the court deem it appropriate to
grant pendente lite interest and future interest @ 8.85 % per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the
decreetal amount.
10. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of
Rs.69,894/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 8.85
% from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the decreetal
amount. The plaintiff is also held entitled to cost of the suit.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after
necessary compliance. Copy of judgment be given dasti on
request.
Announced in the open Court (Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
on this 26th day of April, 2024 SCJ-cum-RC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ NO. 98/2023 UCO Bank Vs. Manik Chand Mishra Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --