Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CS No. 1318/21
State Bank of India,
A Corporation Constituted under the State Bank of India, Act, 1955,
Having its Central Office/Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhavan,
Madame Cama Road, Mumbai-440024, one of its Local Head Office
at 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001,one of its branch at K.G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi and also recovery branch known as
RACPC 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 through its Deputy
Manager Ms. Ruchika Arora.
......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Arman @ Syed Armaan Hashmi, S/o Sh. Abu Saeed,
R/o S-10/3, First Floor,
Saqualain Road, Near Pahalwan Chowk,
Jogabai Extension, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi-110025.
(M): 7290031502
Email: syedhashmi504@gmail.com
Email: agm.overseas@bluemountro.com
Also at: C/o M/S Delight Filtration,
B-96, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
Also at: C/o M/S Blue Mount Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
Sh. Arman @ Syed Armaan Hashmi,
Designation: AGM Overseas,
Employee Code: BME 1532
B-96, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034. …. Defendant
CS no.1318/22 State Bank of India Vs. Arman @Syed Arman Hashmi Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
(On Suit for Recovery of Rs.2,71,921/-)
Date of institution : 23.11.2021
Date for reserving for judgment : 25.03.2023
Date of judgment : 03.04.2023
Final judgment : Suit decreed
1. By way of this order I shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff
for recovery money due against defendant on loan account.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff bank is a corporate
body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and is
engaged in the business of banking and the present suit has been filed
in the court by the plaintiff bank through its Authorized Representative
at RACPC, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. It is the case of
the plaintiff that defendant had approached the aforesaid Branch of
plaintiff bank with the request to grant of financial assistance by way of
Auto/car loan facility and had submitted his identification, employment
and income proof etc. and Performa Invoice of proposed vehicle with
the plaintiff bank before sanction of loan. That considering the
proposal, of the defendant plaintiff bank had sanctioned and disbursed,
car loan amount to the tune of Rs.9,50,000/-on 25.03.2019 which was
duly availed by the defendant by purchasing Honda WR-V bearing
registration no. DL 4CAY 7867 car. That the said loan is secured by
hypothecation of vehicle/car in favour of plaintiff bank. That for the
grant of aforesaid loan defendant had executed various loan documents
in favour of the plaintiff bank viz. Car Loan Application Form,
CS no.1318/22 State Bank of India Vs. Arman @Syed Arman Hashmi Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
Arrangement letter dt. 25.03.2019, Loan cum Hypothecation
Agreement dt. 25.03.2019, Vehicle Delivery Letter, Annexure-1,
Annexure-Car-VIII, Standing Instructions dt. 25.03.2019. A loan
account bearing No.38348881538 was opened in the name of defendant
and the entire amount was disbursed on the said loan account. That as
per the said loan agreement, the loan amount was to be paid with
applicable rate of interest @ 9.8% p.a That the defendant had also
undertaken to pay the said loan in monthly installments of Rs.17,504
with interest in terms of agreement till entire loan outstanding is
liquidated. It is averred that due to default in repayment by the
defendant the Term loan account of the defendant as been clarified as
NPA on 30.03.2020. It is further averred that the plaintiff bank has
taken possession of hypothecated vehicle Honda WR-V bearing
registration no. DL 4CAY 7867 car and sold out the same in public
auction after adopting due process and received sale proceeds amount
of Rs.7,45,000/- which has been duly credited to the account of
defendant on 25.10.2019 and for balance amount has filed the present
suit. That a demand notice dated 14.09.2021 was served upon the
defendant to repay the balance loan amount. However, despite service,
defendant has failed to repay the same.
With these facts, the plaintiff bank filed present suit in the court
against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,71,921/- along with
pendente lie and future interest @ 9.80% per annum.
CS no.1318/22 State Bank of India Vs. Arman @Syed Arman Hashmi Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
3. Prima facie, suit is sufficiently stamped, is within limitation and
within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, Plaint was
filed in duplicate and is signed and verified.
4. Summons were issued to the defendant, defendant did not appear
in the court despite service. He was proceeded ex-parte on 28.01.2023.
5. In support of his plaint, plaintiff has filed following
documents viz. Car Loan Application Form, Arrangement letter dt.
25.03.2019, Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dt. 25.03.2019,
Vehicle Delivery Letter, Annexure-1, Annexure-Car-VIII, Standing
Instructions dt. 25.03.2019, Proforma Invoice, Certificate of Sale dt.
24.10.2019, Photocopy of RC of hypothecated vehicle, insurance of
hypothecated vehicle, PAN of defendant, Aadhar of defendant, copy of
legal notice dated 14.09.2021, original postal receipt, certified
statement of account, certificate of accrued interest, certificate of
accuracy of computer data, true copy of gazette notification.
6. Vide order dt. 28.01.2023, plaintiff has dispensed with for
filing ex-parte evidence in view of judgment titled Satya
Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. in
CS (OS) 1213/2011 dated 07.02.2012 by Hon’ble High court of Delhi.
Accordingly, matter was fixed for ex-parte final arguments.
CS no.1318/22 State Bank of India Vs. Arman @Syed Arman Hashmi Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
7. I have heard ld. Counsel for the plaintiff at length and have
perused the record carefully.
8. Facts of the present case remain un rebutted and un
challenged. This court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the
AR of the plaintiff. Testimony is supported by documentary evidence.
Plaintiff has prove its case on scale of preponderance of probabilities,
against the Defendant.
9. Relief.
In view of the discussions above, the present suit is
decreed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant. The
plaintiff bank is entitled for the decreetal amount of Rs.2,71,921/- along
with interest @ 4% per annum on the same from the date of filing of
the present suit till the date of decree.
No order as to costs.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly after filing of
deficient court fees, if any.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
[SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN]
Announced in the open court SCJ-CUM-RC
on 03.04.2023 New Delhi Distt, PHC, Delhi
CS no.1318/22 State Bank of India Vs. Arman @Syed Arman Hashmi Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --