Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010002242020
Presented on : 06012020
Registered on : 27012020
Decided on : 07102021
Duration : Y01, M9, D01
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.57 OF 2020
Bank of India, ]
A body corporate,Constituted under the Banking ]
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) ]
Act,1970 having their Head Office at Star House, ]
Plot No.C/5, 'G' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, ]
Bandra(E), Mumbai400 051, and one of its Branch ]
office amongst others known as Gandhi Market Branch ]
situated at Plot No.1819/290A, Anand Nagar, Flank ]
Road, Mumbai400 037, through its Authorized ]
Representative Mr.Dilip B.Umredkar, ]
Senior Manager of the plaintiff ]...Plaintiff
V/s
1.M/s.Dharmi Travels and Tours ]
A proprietorship Concern having address ]
at Room No.183, Chawl No.7, Mohite Patil ]
Nagar, Mankhurd (W), Mumbai400 043 ]
2. Mr.Suresh Vithal Jadhav ]
Proprietor of M/s. Dharmi Travels and Tours ]
Adult, Indian Inhabitant having address at ]
Room No.183, Chawl No.7, Mohite Patil Nagar, ]
Mankhurd (W), Mumbai400 043 ]..Defendants
APPEARANCE:
Ld. Adv. Dakshata Sawant I/by M/s. Anand B.Shinde and Co. for the
plaintiff.
DefendantsExparte.
-- 1 of 7 --
2
CORAM : HIS HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SHRI. RAJESH A. SASNE
(C.R.No.32)
DATED : 07th October, 2021.
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
(Dictated in Open Court)
This is suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for
recovery of amount advanced to the defendants by term loan.
In brief, the facts of the plaintiff's case are as under :
2. The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies Act, 1970. The defendant No.1 is the Proprietary
and the defendant No.2 is the Proprietor of defendant No.1. The
defendants applied to the plaintiff for loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh for purchase
of a car. On the request of the defendants, the plaintiff sanctioned and
granted loan under SRTO Loan Scheme of Rs.7.23 Lakh on 01.07.2015
to the defendants. On 01.07.2015, the defendants have executed the
following loan documents in favour of the plaintiff.
a. Demand Promissory Note for Rs.7.23 Lakhs dated 01.07.2015
b. Bearer Letter dated 01.07.2015
c. Loan Installment letter dated 01.07.2015 whereby the
defendants have agreed to repay the said loan by way of 60
equated monthly installments of Rs.16,266/ per month
commencing from July, 2015
d. Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 01.07.2015
executed by the defendants, whereby the defendants agreed
to pay Rs.7,23,000/ with interest at the rate of 12.45% p.a.
with monthly rest and hypothecated the said Four Wheeler
(Car)Chevrolet Enjoy LS Diesel
e. Composite Agreement dated 01.07.2015
-- 2 of 7 --
3
3. As per the terms of sanction of loan, it was agreed to repay
the term loan in sixty months. The plaintiff granted and sanctioned the
said loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh to the defendants. The defendants failed and
neglected to conduct the facility satisfactorily and to comply and
observer the terms and conditions of the sanctioned term loan. The
plaintiff called upon the defendants to pay the overdue amount
outstanding in the said account.
4. On 20.06.2018, the defendants have acknowledged their
debt due to the plaintiff by executing acknowledgment of debt and
confirmed the documents executed on 01.07.2015. The defendants
failed to repay the outstanding amount of loan which resulted in the
account classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.01.2019.
Therefore, On 28.03.2019, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the
defendants and called upon them to make payment of outstanding
amount. The amount of Rs.3,06,065.41 is due and payable by the
defendants to the plaintiff along with the interest at the rate of 11.90%
p.a. The defendants are also liable to pay penal interest at the rate of
2% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for decree of recovery of said
amount against the defendants.
5. The suit is proceeded exparte against the defendants.
6. Heard the learned Advocate for the plaintiff. No argument
of the defendants. Points for determination along with my findings
thereon with reasons are as under:
-- 3 of 7 --
4
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it has
advanced term loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh to the
defendants ?
Yes
2. Whether the defendants failed to repay the
amount due against the loan to the
plaintiff ?
Yes
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
amount of Rs.03,06,065.41 is due and
payable from the defendants?
Yes
4. If yes, at what rate of interest ? @ 10% p.a.
5. What order and decree? Suit is decreed.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO.1 to 4:
7. All these points are interlinked with each other, hence they
are taken together for consideration. The plaintiff in support of his
claim has examined Chandraprakash (PW1) at Exh.06. The plaintiff has
relied on the following documentary evidence:
1 Letter of Authority dated 02.09.2021 at Exh. 09
2 Letter of Sanction dated 01.07.2015 at Exh.10
3 Demand Promissory Note for Rs.7.23 Lakhs dtd. 01.7.2015
at Exh.11
4 Bearer Letter dated 01.07.2015 at Exh. 12
5 Loan Installment Letter dated 01.07.2015 at Exh. 13
6 Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 01.07.2015 at
Exh.14
7 Composite Agreement dated 01.07.2015 at Exh.15
8 Photocopy of Certificate of Registration dated 17.07.2015
at ArtX
9 Acknowledgment of Debt dated 20.06.2018 at Exh.16
10 Plaintiffs Advocates legal Notice dtd 28.03.2019 at Exh.17
-- 4 of 7 --
5
11 Returned Envelopes received from postal authorities at
Exh.18 colly
12 Statement of accounts along with relevant certificates at
Exh.19 colly
8. The documentary evidence alongwith oral evidence of the
plaintiff shows that the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for
obtaining term loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh. The said loan was for purchase of
a car. The original sanctioned letter (Exh.10) shows that the plaintiff
bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh to the defendants. The
period for repayment of loan was 60 months. Similarly, deed of
hypothecation (Exh.14) is also executed by the defendants. The said
deed of hypothecation bears condition that borrower shall pay interest
at the rate of 2.50% over the base rate [base rate at present being
12.45%]. These documents clearly shows that the defendants have
obtained loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh from the plaintiff.
9. Chandraprakash (PW1) deposes that the defendants failed
and neglected to observe the conditions of loan agreement. As account
was irregular and subsequently became NPA, the defendants were
called upon to pay the outstanding loan amount by legal notice dated
28.03.2019 (Exh.17). He further deposes that in spite of this, the
defendants failed to pay the outstanding amount. The statement of
accounts (Exh.19 colly) shows that on 07.03.2019 there was last credit
entry of Rs.30,000/ to the account. The statement of accounts further
shows that on 23.12.2019, the amount of Rs.3,06,065.41 was due and
payable from the defendants. The defendants failed to repay the
outstanding amount of loan which resulted in the account classified as
Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.01.2019. The defendants have
acknowledged their debt due to the plaintiff by executing
-- 5 of 7 --
6
acknowledgment of debt (Exh.16) and confirmed the documents
executed on 01.07.2015.
10. The rate of interest as stated in the deed of hypothecation
is 2.50% over the base rate [base rate at present being 12.45%]. The
plaintiffs have also prayed for 2% penal interest. In the plaint, the
plaintiff has prayed for interest at the rate of 11.90% p.a. plus 2% penal
interest. Considering the transaction and considering the fact that the
defendants have obtained loan for purchase of car, in my view, the
plaintiff is entitled for the rate of interest at the rate of 10% p.a.
11. As aforesaid the plaintiff proves that the defendants have
obtained loan of Rs.7.23 Lakh from the plaintiff. The plaintiff also
proves that the defendants have failed to repay the balance loan
amount of Rs.3,06,065.41 which is due and payable from the
defendants to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree
against the defendants for recovery of said amount along with interest
at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this suit till realisation
of amount. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4.
AS TO POINT NO.5:
12. In view of my findings to point Nos.1 to 4, the suit is liable
to be decreed with costs. In the result, in answer to point No.5, I pass
the following order.
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. The defendants jointly and severally do pay to the
plaintiff the amount of Rs.3,06,065.41 (Rupees Three
Lakh Six Thousand Sixty Five and Paise Forty One
-- 6 of 7 --
7
Only) together with interest at the rate of 10% per
annum from the date of filing of this suit till its
realisation.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Rajesh A.Sasne)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 07.10.2021 Mumbai.
Dictated on : 07.10.2021
Transcribed on : 11.10.2021
Signed by HHJ on : 11.10.2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
13.10.2021 at 4.21 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mrs. K.S.Bhosale)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI RAJESH A.SASNE
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
07.10.2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 13.10.2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 13.10.2021
-- 7 of 7 --