Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
CS (COMM.) NO.39/2026
CNR NO.DLNE01-001503-2026
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.,
A BANKING COMPANY REGISTERED WITH
THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, THROUGH ITS
AR MR. SUDHIR KUMAR,
PLOT NO.7, 5th FLOOR, KOTAK BANK HOUSE,
NOIDA, (G.B. NAGAR), U.P.
........ Plaintiff.
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR,
S/O SH. BHANVAR SINGH
R/O V-317, SBI GALI, OPPOSITE KRISHNA MANDIR,
GHONDA, NEW DELHI – 110053.
…..Defendant
Date of Institution : 12.05.2026
Date of final arguments : 16.07.2026
Date of decision : 16.07.2026
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT:-
1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the
defendant seeking recovery of Rs.3,36,889/- alongwith
pendentelite and future interest.
2. As contended, the plaintiff bank had taken on lease
the premises bearing no.L-255/1, Ground Floor, Main Road,
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 1
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 1 of 8 --
Fateh Singh Marg, Gautam Vihar, Ghonda, New Delhi from the
defendant by way of duly registered lease deed dated 16.02.2023
for the purpose of installation and operation of an Automated
Teller Machine (ATM). The said lease was executed for a fixed
term of nine years commencing from 06.12.2022 on such terms
and conditions as mutually agreed upon between the parties. As
per Article-5, Clause A of the lease deed dated 16.02.2023, the
plaintiff bank was vested with the sole and absolute right to
terminate the lease at any time during the subsistence of the lease
period by serving a prior written notice of three months upon the
lessor i.e. defendant herein or in the alternative, by paying three
months rent in lieu of such notice period. Consequently, the
plaintiff bank issued a termination letter dated 15.05.2025
terminating the lease deed on 14.08.2025. It was intimated to the
defendant by the plaintiff that the rent for the period from
15.05.25 till 14.08.25 shall be adjusted against the interest free
refundable security deposit paid at the time of execution of lease
deed dated 16.02.23. Vide e-mail dated 11.06.25, the defendant
acknowledged receipt of the termination letter dated 15.05.2025
and sought clarification regarding the reasons for premature
termination of the lease. The plaintiff bank vide its reply dated
13.06.2025 duly informed the defendant about the reasons for
premature termination. Subsequent to the issuance of termination
letter dated 15.05.25, the defendant arbitrary, illegally and high
handed manner created obstruction and restrained the plaintiff’s
employees/agents from entering the leased premises from
removing the ATM machine. On 13.06.2025 when the officials of
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 2
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 2 of 8 --
the plaintiff visited the leased premises for removing the ATM
machine, the defendant not only obstructed the said removal but
also extended threats of dire consequences to the officials of the
plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid illegal conduct of defendant,
the plaintiff bank lodged a criminal complaint dated 16.06.25
before PS New Usmanpur against the defendant for wrongfully
restraining the plaintiff from accessing the premises and
removing its ATM machine. Legal notice dated 13.08.2025 was
also issued to the defendant to enter the leased premises and
remove the ATM machine belonging to the plaintiff and to accept
peaceful handover of the premises on 14.08.2025 failing which
appropriate legal proceedings were to be initiated against the
defendant which was not replied nor the machine was handed
over to the plaintiff. Apart from the above, an amount of
Rs.44,000/- towards interest free security is still lying with the
defendant which has not been refunded to the plaintiff despite
termination of lease deed dated 16.02.2023. Accordingly, a sum
of Rs.3,36,889/- comprising of Rs.3,01,689/- towards the value
of the ATM and allied assets lying within the premises and
Rs.35,200/- towards recovery of rentals alongwith damages on
account of loss of business and other consequential losses is due
and recoverable from the defendant. The plaintiff also initiated
the proceedings of pre-institution mediation against the defendant
before the Delhi Legal Services Authority (North-East) but the
defendant failed to appear in the said proceedings and hence non
starter report was issued. The present suit is, therefore, filed by
the plaintiff against the defendant for the recovery of
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 3
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 3 of 8 --
Rs.3,36,889/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest.
3. The defendant was served through Whatsapp on
21.05.2026 but failed to appear in the matter nor filed the written
statement within the period of 30 days as prescribed under the
Commercial Courts Act and hence the right of the defendant to
file written statement was closed and his defence was struck off
vide order dated 04.07.2026. Following notional issues was
framed for adjudication of the case:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum
of Rs.3,36,889/- as prayed for ? ….OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if
so, at what rate, at what amount and for what period? …... OPP
(3) Relief.
4. The evidence in this case was recorded before the
Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 04.07.2026. The
Plaintiff bank examined its AR Sh. Sudhir Kumar as PW1 to
prove the case. No evidence was led by the Defendant.
5. I have heard the final arguments addressed by the
counsel for the Plaintiff and have perused the plaint, documents
filed alongwith the same and the evidence led by the Plaintiff.
My issue-wise findings is as under:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum
of Rs.3,36,889/- as prayed for ? ….OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 4
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 4 of 8 --
so, at what rate, at what amount and for what period? …... OPP
6. The brief and relevant facts for filing the present suit
has been mentioned at the outset. The plaintiff examined PW1 to
prove the case. PW1 Sh. Sudhir Kumar by way of his affidavit
Ex.PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint. He has also
proved the following documents:-
(1) True copy of the Power of Attorney/Board Resolution
dated 03.04.2025 as Ex.PW1/1.
(2) Lease deed dated 16.02.2023 as Ex.PW1/2.
(3) True copy of demand draft bearing no.180393 issued
by Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 16.12.22 as Ex.PW1/3.
(4) Termination letter dated 15.05.2025 as Ex.PW1/4.
(5) Postal receipts of the termination letter dated 15.05.25
as Ex.PW1/5.
(6) Return envelope of the termination letter dated
15.05.25 as Ex.PW1/6.
(7) E-mail dated 11.06.25 as Ex.PW1/7.
(8) Reply letter dated 13.06.25 as Ex.PW1/8.
(9) Criminal complaint dated 16.06.25 as Mark A.
(10) Legal notice dated 13.08.25 as Ex.PW1/10.
(11) Digital bill of the ATM as Ex.PW1/11.
(12) Digital bills of the allied assets as Ex.PW1/12.
(13) Non Starter Report dated 21.01.26 as Ex.PW1/13.
(14) Certificate under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 as
Ex.PW1/14.
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 5
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 5 of 8 --
7. PW1 was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the
defendant. Therefore, the testimony as well as documents proved
by PW1 has remained uncontroverted/unimpeached on behalf of
the Defendant. Considering the testimony of PW1 and the
documents proved by them, it is evident that the Plaintiff has
proved the case against the defendant towards the principal
amount of Rs.3,36,889/-. The issue no.(1) is accordingly decided
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The plaintiff has also claimed pendentelite and future
interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount. The interest
is payable as per Section 34 CPC. For ready reference, Section
34 CPC is reproduced hereunder:
Section 34 CPC: Interest
(i)“Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money,
the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the
Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum
adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in
addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any
period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at
such rate not exceeding 6% per annum as the Court deems
reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to
the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks
fit.
(ii).Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so
adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of
such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not
exceed the contractual rate or interest or where there is no
contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced
by national- ized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation (i) In this sub-section, “nationalized bank” means a
corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Un- dertakings) Act 1970.
Explanation (ii) For the purposes of this section, a transaction is
a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry,
trade or business of the party in - curring the liability.
Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of
further interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 6
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 6 of 8 --
decree to the date of the payment or other earlier date, the Court
shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate
suit therefore shall not lie”.(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Section 34 CPC provides that plaintiff will be entitled
the interest at the rate at which Court finds reasonable. For a
general suit, the rate of interest prescribed is 6% and for
commercial suit, the Parliament promulgates that rate of interest
may increase from 6% to a rate which is found reasonable.
Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to only the rate at which RBI has
issued Circular for Commercial suits.
9. As far as the interest is concerned, rate applicable to
Commercial transaction shall be payable. As per RBI notification
dated 30.08.2022 issued vide Press Release no.2022-2023/794
whereby advisory issued by RBI to Schedule Commercial banks
of accepting deposit rates @ 9.05% per annum. In view of the
above discussions, the plaintiff is also entitled to pendentelite and
future interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of
Rs.3,36,889/-. The issue no.(2) is accordingly decided in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief:
10. In view of the above, the suit of plaintiff is
accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant for a sum of Rs.3,36,889/- alongwith pendentelite and
future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit
till realization. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 7
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 7 of 8 --
suit also.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. Judgment be uploaded on the server.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance.
Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
on 16th July, 2026 District Judge (Commercial Court),
North East: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) 39/2026
Page No. 8
of 8
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. VS. DEEPAK KUMAR
-- 8 of 8 --