Final Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 342/2024
CNR NO. DLSH01-003713-2024
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
A body Corporate Constituted under the Bank Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its
head Office at Plot No. 4, Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New
Delhi and amongst other Branch at F-2/23-24,
Near Vijay Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051.
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Ray,
Prop. Of M/s Rajasthan Genset,
R/o 369, Gali No. 7, Near Mother Dairy,
West Kanti Nagar, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi – 110 051.
ALSO AT :
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Ray
S/o Sh. Naresh Ray
r/o 531, Street No. 9, West Kanti Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051.
Mob : 8750474933, 8800163087
E-mail : rajasthangenset@gmail.com
rajasthangen2017@gmail.com.
..…Defendant.
Date of institution of the case : 05.06.2024
Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 14.01.2026
Date of judgment : 16.01.2026
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
The present commercial suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs.7,93,535.36, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 1
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 1 of 8 --
10.70% p.a, has been filed, on behalf of the plaintiff bank, on
03.06.2024.
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff bank is a Body
Corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
& Transfer Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Plot
No. 4, Sector-10, Dwaraka, New Delhi and amongst other branch at
F-2/23-24, near Vijay Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 and
the present suit has been filed by Sh. Balbir Singh Narang, Senior
Manager, who has been duly authorized vide Power of Attorney to
sign and depose on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that due to amalgamation
of Oriental bank of Commerce and United bank of India into
Punjab National Bank, vide Notification dated 19.03.2020, the
Oriental Bank of Commerce merged into Punjab National Bank.
4. It is stated that defendant being the proprietor of
“Rajasthan Genset” having his office at X/2505, Gali No. 8,
Raghubar Pura – II, Delhi – 110 031 approached the plaintiff
bank in the month of August, 2018 for sanctioning of a CC-
Working Capital (Cash Credit) under PMMY (Fresh) loan for
Rs.2,00,000/- for trading and improvement of his business and
after consideration, the said loan was sanctioned to the defendant,
vide sanction letter dated 14.08.2018 and the interest agreed
between the parties was @10% p.a.
5. It is averred that the defendant had executed various
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 2
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 2 of 8 --
documents and again on 11.07.2019, the defendant requested for
cash credit of Rs.10,00,000/-, but after scrutinizing his request,
only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned to him, and the
interest was agreed @ 10% p.a., in addition to Rs.2,00,000/-
already sanctioned. He again approached the plaintiff bank vide
loan application dated 11.09.2020, for sanction of a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as GECL (Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line) and
the same was also sanctioned on 11.09.2020 and the interest was
agreed @ 7.65% p.a.
6. It is contended that on 29.06.2021, the plaintiff and the
defendant entered into an arrangement letter which was signed by
both the parties. It is stated that after utilizing the said loan, the
defendant could not maintain the said account properly, as such
same was declared as NPA on 30.05.2022.
7. It is further contended that defendant acknowledged the
debts of the plaintiff bank by executing the Balance and Security
confirmation letter dated 14.07.2022 and a Legal Notice was also
sent to the defendant on 04.05.2023 demanding Rs.7,93,535.36.
8. That as per the statement of account of the plaintiff bank
an amount of Rs.7,93,535.36, alongwith pendentelite and future
interest @ 10.70% p.a, was due and payable by the defendant.
9. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff bank may
be decreed, in its favour, and against the defendant, for a sum of
Rs.7,93,535.36, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 3
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 3 of 8 --
10.70% p.a, along with costs.
10. After filing of the present suit, the summons of the suit
for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant. But, the
same could not be served upon him by ordinary means.
Therefore, an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was
moved by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, for service of the
defendant by substituted means. The said application was
allowed, vide order dated 21.05.2025 and accordingly, the
summons of the suit for settlement of issues were duly served
upon the defendant, vide publication in national newspaper,
“The Statesman”, and the Hindi Newspaper “Veer Arjun”, vide
publication dated 16.06.2025. But despite due service, none had
appeared on behalf of the defendant, and no written statement
was filed on his behalf. Therefore, vide order dated 05.08.2025,
the defendant was proceeded ‘exparte’.
11. During the ‘exparte’ plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff
bank has examined its Authorized Representative, Sh. Rajeev
Kumar Thakur, Senior Manager, as PW1, who has filed his
affidavit, as Ex. PW1/A and has proved the various documents,
on record, as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/19.
12. ‘Exparte’ final arguments were concluded by Sh. Tushar
Mishra, Advocate for the plaintiff bank, on 14.01.2026. Written
Arguments have also been filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
bank has reiterated the contents of the plaint and the affidavit Ex.
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 4
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 4 of 8 --
PW1/A and has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff bank may be
decreed, in its favour, and against the defendant, with interest and
Costs.
13. I have carefully perused the case file. I have also given
my considered thoughts to the oral arguments addressed by the
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the written
arguments filed. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant
has remained ‘exparte’, during the trial, and has failed to file his
written statement and statement of truth or affidavit of
admission/denial of the documents, as stipulated under the
provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
14. The dispute between the parties is
commercial in nature
and is covered within the ambit of section 2 (1) (c) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, ‘
Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP’, reported as
2019 SCC Online SC 1311 has held that the provisions of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are to be followed strictly. No
liberal interpretation of the provisions has to be given and it
should be read with narrow sense. It was observed as follows:
“The object and purpose of the establishment of Commercial
Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate
Divisions of the High Court is to ensure that the cases involved
in commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and
at a reasonable cost to litigants. Keeping in view the object and
purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts and fast
tracking procedure provided under the Act, the statutory
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 5
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 5 of 8 --
provisions of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to
be meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial
litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those who are
engaged in trade and commerce which in turn will further
economic growth of the country.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. This Court has
the territorial jurisdiction over the present
dispute, in view of the contents of paragraph 18 of the plaint and
the fact that the defendant is the permanent resident of Krishna
Nagar, Delhi - 110 051 and the Loans were also disbursed from
the Krishna Nagar Branch of the Plaintiff Bank, which falls
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
17. This Court has
the pecuniary jurisdiction over the present
suit, as the present suit has been filed, for recovery of a sum of
Rs.7,93,535.36p, alongwith pendentelite and future interest, as the
amount claimed by the plaintiff is as per the specified value, as
defined under section 2 (1) (i) and section 6 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015.
18. The defendant was lastly sanctioned the GECL Facility
on 11.09.2020. The defendant executed a Balance and Security
Confirmation Letter on 14.07.2022. The present suit has been
instituted on 05.06.2024, and is therefore, well
within the period
of limitation.
19. The plaintiff bank has also filed the application for pre-
litigation mediation, on 09.05.2023 and the Non Starter Report
was issued by DLSA, Shahdara District, Delhi, on 03.07.2023.
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 6
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 6 of 8 --
Therefore, the mandatory requirement of Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been complied by the plaintiff
bank.
20. The averments made in the plaint and the affidavit Ex.
PW1/A have remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and
unchallenged and can be presumed to be admitted as correct, as the
defendant, has remained ‘exparte’, during the trial.
21. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the
plaint and the affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The relevant documents, which
have been filed on record and proved by PW1 Sh. Rajeev Kumar
Thakur, appear to be of an unimpeachable character.
22. The contents of the affidavit Ex. PW1/A and the
documents filed on record, i.e., the General Power of Attorney,
Ex. PW1/1 ; Amalgamation Notice Ex. PW1/2 ; Loan
Application Form, Ex. PW1/3 ; Sanction Letter dated
14.08.2018, Ex. PW1/4 ; Agreement of Hypothecation of Assets,
Ex. PW1/5 ; Common Agreement, Ex. PW1/6 ; Loan Application
Form under PMMY Loan Ex. PW1/7 ; Sanction of Credit
Facility, dated 18.07.20219, Ex. PW1/8 ; Agreement of
Hypothecation of Assets, dated 18.07.2019, Ex. PW1/9 ;
Common Agreement dated 18.07.2019, Ex. PW1/10 ; Sole
Proprietorship Letter, Ex. PW1/11 ; Application form for GECL,
Ex. PW1/12 and Sanction letter of same Ex. PW1/12A ;
Undertaking dated 11.09.2020, Ex. PW1/13 ; Agreement for
working capital term Loan Ex. PW1/14 ; Master Agreement
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 7
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 7 of 8 --
dated 11.09.2020, Ex. PW1/15 ; Offer Letter for restructuring of
CC/OD Limits Ex. PW1/15A ; Restructuring of CC/OD Limits
Ex. PW1/15B; Balance and Security Confirmation dated
14.07.2022, Ex. PW1/16 ; Legal Notice dated 04.05.2023, Ex.
PW1/17 ; Certificate u/s 2A of Banker’s Book Evidence Act and
Section 65B of Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/18 and the Non-Starter
Report Ex. PW1/19 have all remained uncontroverted, unrebutted
and unchallenged.
23. From the documents on record it is clear that an amount of
Rs.7,93,535.36p was due and payable by the defendant, as on
31.03.2023.
24. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff bank is hereby decreed, in
favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant, for an
amount of Rs.7,93,535.36p with interest @ 9% per annum, w.e.f.
01.04.2023, till its realization.
Costs are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on
this 16th day of January, 2026
SUDESH KUMAR,
District Judge,
Commercial Court-01,
Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi.
CS (Comm.) No 342/24 page 8
of 8
D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
-- 8 of 8 --