Final Order 2

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
MHCC010010762020
Presented on :23-01-2020
Registered on : 19-03-2021
Decided on : 03-08-2026
Duration : Yr 6, M 6, D 12
Exhibit -
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 859 OF 2021
Canara Bank (formerly Syndicate Bank)]
a body corporate constituted and ]
functioning under the Banking ]
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ]
of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having ]
its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, ]
Bangalore, Karnataka State and ]
having one of its Branch Offices ]
at 1st Floor, 10, Homji Street, ]
Fort, Mumbai – 400 023, ]
through Sheela Vijay Nambiar, ] …..Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Lata Travels, ]
a Proprietary Concern, through ]
its Proprietor Mr. Chandresh ]
Surendra Kamble, B.D.D. ]
-- 1 of 10 --
2 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
Chawl No. 47, Room No. 8, ]
G.M. Bhosle Marg, Worli, ]
Mumbai – 400018 ] …..Defendant
Appearances:-
For the Plaintiff: Smt. Sandhya Nanavare, Advocate.
For the Defendant: None (proceeded ex parte)
CORAM : HHJ SMT. PADMAJA. M. KATHARE
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.59)
DATE : 03/08/2026
Claim : Suit for Recovery
EX- PARTE JUDGMENT
1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff, Canara Bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.
2,47,163.33 (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred and
Sixty Three and Paise Thirty Three Only) together with interest thereon
@12.75% per annum with monthly rests (inclusive of 2% penal interest)
from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realization, from the
Defendant, M/s Lata Travels, a Proprietary Concern through its Proprietor
Mr. Chandresh Surendra Kamble.
The case of the Plaintiff, briefly stated, is as follows:
2. The Plaintiff is a Nationalized Bank, a body corporate constituted and
functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road,
Bangalore, Karnataka State and one of its branch offices at 1st Floor, 10,
Homji Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023.
-- 2 of 10 --
3 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
3. The suit transaction pertains to and arises out of the amount due under a
Term Loan Facility availed by the Defendant. The loan was originally
disbursed by Syndicate Bank, which, got amalgamated to Canara Ban on
the basis of Amalgamation Scheme dated 04.03.2020.
4. Upon the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff granted a Term Loan
Facility of Rs. 4,53,000/- on 28.07.2015, with interest @11.25% per
annum compounded monthly, for the purchase of a vehicle, namely a
Maruti WagonR, for commercial purpose. The said loan facility was
repayable in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs. 7,900/- each.
5. In connection with the said loan facility, the Defendant executed the
following documents in favour of the Plaintiff Bank: (a) Loan Application
dated 21.07.2015 Exhibit 10; (b) Sanction Letter dated 25.07.2015 Exhibit
11; (c) Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 27.07.2015 Exhibit 12;
(d) Receipt dated 27.07.2015 Exhibit 13; and (e) Particulars of Assets and
Liabilities dated 21.07.2015 Exhibit 17.
6. After availing the said loan facility, the Defendant was not regular in
repaying the monthly installments to the Plaintiff. Despite repeated
requests and reminders, the Defendant failed and neglected to regularize
the account, as a result of which the loan account was classified as a Non-
Performing Asset on 02.05.2019. The last payment made by the Defendant
towards the loan account was on 27.05.2019.
7. In view of the Defendant’s failure to repay the outstanding dues despite
repeated requests and demands, the Plaintiff issued a Recall Notice dated
20.05.2019, calling upon the Defendant to repay the entire amount
-- 3 of 10 --
4 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
outstanding under the loan facility within 15 days of receipt thereof, failing
which the Plaintiff would initiate legal proceedings. Despite the said notice,
the Defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues.
8. As the Defendant failed to repay the loan outstanding, the vehicle
hypothecated to the Plaintiff was sold/auctioned and the sale proceeds
were duly credited to the loan account. The present suit has been filed for
recovery of the balance amount outstanding after such adjustment.
9. As per the statement of account, the Defendant is bound and liable to pay
to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,47,163.33 together with interest thereon
@12.75% per annum with monthly rests (inclusive of 2% penal interest),
from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realization.
10. The Plaintiff has averred that the loan was granted to the Defendant in the
ordinary course of its banking business, and that the liability of the
Defendant is subsisting and legally recoverable. The Plaintiff has further
averred that the monthly statements of account were regularly made
available to the Defendant in the ordinary course of business and were
never disputed by the Defendant, and that the said accounts have been
accurately maintained by an authorized person in the usual course of
banking transactions.
11. The Plaintiff has averred that the amount was advanced by the Plaintiff to
the Defendant at its Homji Street, Fort, Mumbai Branch; that all the loan
documents were executed at the said branch; that the amount is
recoverable from the Defendant at Mumbai; and that the entire cause of
-- 4 of 10 --
5 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, at Mumbai, on
10.06.2019.
12. The Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court
fees under Section 6(4) of the Bombay Court Fees Act at Rs. 2,47,116.33
and has paid court fees of Rs. 9,430/- accordingly. The Plaintiff has further
averred that the claim, the last payment towards which was made on
27.05.2019, is not barred by the law of limitation and that the suit has been
filed in time.
13. The Plaintiff has stated that the suit is filed under Section 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, as an ordinary civil suit and does not fall within the
purview of the Commercial Courts Act, and that accordingly no pre-
institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is
required.
14. The Defendant was duly served with the summons of this suit but failed to
appear before this Hon’ble Court either in person or through an Advocate
to contest the suit. Accordingly, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to proceed
ex-parte against the Defendant vide order dated 27.07.2026.
15. Since the Defendant has chosen not to appear and contest the suit despite
due service, the evidence led by the Plaintiff, both documentary and by way
of the affidavit of its witness, remains unrebutted and uncontroverted on
record.
16. On aforesaid facts and circumstances, following points arise for my
determination. I have recorded my findings to them together with reasons
as under.
-- 5 of 10 --
6 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
Sr.
No.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION FINDINGS
1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the
Defendant availed the Term Loan Facility
of Rs. 4,53,000/- on 28.07.2015 and
executed the documents referred to in
the plaint in connection therewith?
In the affirmative
2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the
Defendant committed default in
repayment of the said loan facility and
that the loan account was classified as a
Non-Performing Asset on 02.05.2019?
In the affirmative
3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that, a sum
of Rs. 2,47,116.33 remains due and
payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
together with interest @ 12.75% p.a. as
claimed?
In the affirmative
4) What order and decree? Suit is decreed as
per final order
: REASONS :
As to Point Nos.1 to 3 :
17. In support of its case, the Plaintiff examined Mr. Anoop Kumar Singh,
Senior/Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank, who filed his Affidavit of
-- 6 of 10 --
7 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
Evidence on solemn affirmation, deposing to the facts stated in the plaint
and tendering in evidence the original documents referred to therein,
namely the Loan Application dated 21.07.2015 Exhibit 10, Letter of
Sanction dated 25.07.2015 Exhibit 11, Composite Hypothecation
Agreement dated 27.07.2015 Exhibit 12 , Receipt dated 27.07.2015 Exhibit
13, Particulars of Assets and Liabilities dated 21.07.2015 Exhibit 14,
Notice dated 20.05.2019 Exhibit 15, Statement of Account together with
the certificate Exhibit 16 and Particular of Claim exhibit 17.
18. On a perusal of the plaint, the Affidavit of Evidence of the Plaintiff’s
witness, and the documents tendered in evidence, being the Loan
Application dated 21.07.2015 Exhibit 10, Letter of Sanction dated
25.07.2015 Exhibit 11, Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated
27.07.2015 Exhibit 12 , Receipt dated 27.07.2015 Exhibit 13, Particulars of
Assets and Liabilities dated 21.07.2015 Exhibit 14, Notice dated
20.05.2019 Exhibit 15, Statement of Account together with the certificate
Exhibit 16 and Particular of Claim exhibit 17, and in the absence of any
evidence or contention to the contrary from the Defendant, I find that the
Plaintiff has proved that the Defendant availed the Term Loan Facility of
Rs. 4,53,000/- on 28.07.2015 for the purchase of a Maruti WagonR for
commercial purpose, and duly executed the Loan Application, Sanction
Letter, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Receipt and Particulars of
Assets and Liabilities in connection therewith.
19. I further find that the Plaintiff has proved that the Defendant failed to
repay the loan facility regularly, that the loan account was classified as a
Non-Performing Asset on 02.05.2019, that the Plaintiff thereafter issued a
-- 7 of 10 --
8 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
Recall Notice dated 20.05.2019 calling upon the Defendant to repay the
outstanding dues, and that despite the same the Defendant failed to repay
the amount due. I further find that the hypothecated vehicle was sold and
the sale proceeds were duly credited to the loan account, leaving a balance
due and payable by the Defendant.
20. On a perusal of the Statement of Account Exhibit 16 and the Particulars of
Claim Exhibit 17, and the same being unrebutted, I find that the Plaintiff
has proved that a sum of Rs. 2,47,163.33 is due and payable by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff, together with interest thereon @12.75% per
annum with monthly rests, inclusive of 2% penal interest, from the date of
filing of the suit till payment or realization.
21. I further find that the suit transaction arose within the jurisdiction of this
Court in as much as the loan documents were executed at the Plaintiff’s
Homji Street, Fort, Mumbai Branch, and the cause of action arose at
Mumbai. I find that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit. I further find that, the last payment having been made by the
Defendant on 27.05.2019, the suit filed thereafter is within limitation and
is not barred by the law of limitation.
22. In view of the foregoing and having regard to the fact that the Defendant,
despite due service, has failed to appear and has shown no willingness to
honour the admitted debt, I find that the Plaintiff has proved its case and is
entitled to a decree in terms of the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
ORDER
-- 8 of 10 --
9 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
(i) The suit is decreed ex-parte in favour of the Plaintiff against the
Defendant.
(ii) The Defendant, M/s Lata Travels, a Proprietary Concern through
its Proprietor Mr. Chandresh Surendra Kamble, is directed to pay
to the Plaintiff, Canara Bank (formerly Syndicate Bank), a sum of
Rs. 2,47,116.33 (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Seven Thousand One
Hundred Sixteen and Paise Thirty Three Only), together with
interest thereon @9%, from the date of filing of the suit till
payment or realization.
(iii) The Defendant shall pay Rs.2,47,116.33 along with interest
i.e.1,45,145/-, total amount Rs.3,92,261/- (Three Lakh Ninety Two
Thousand Two Hundred Sixty One Only) to the plaintiff.
(iv) The Defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.
(v) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Padmaja M. Kathare)
Judge
DATE.:03/08/2026. City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai
Dictated & directly typed on : 03/08/2026.
Signed on:03/08/2026.
-- 9 of 10 --
10 S.C. SUIT NO. 859-2021
Ex-Parte Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
03.08.2026 Mrs. S.A. Shekade.
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
SMT. P.M. Kathare (Court Room
No.59)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
03.08.2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
03.08.2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 03.08.2026
-- 10 of 10 --