Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 1 of 8
Suit Lodged on : 12.02.2020
Suit Admitted on : 05.08.2020
Suit Decided on : 21.01.2026
Duration : 05 Years, 11 Months 09 Days
MHCC010019102020
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
Commercial Suit No. 453 / 2020
Exhibit No. 29
Canara 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 their branch office
at 10, Homji Street Branch, Fort,
Mumbai 400 023. … Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. Naikba Travels
A Proprietary concern, through its
Proprietor Mr. Krishna Shivaji Mohite
Age 36 years, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at Santoshi Mata Chawl, Mahakali,
Sardar Vallabhai Patel Marg,
Opp. Taxila Building, Andheri (E),
Mumbai 400 093. … Defendant
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. Ms. Sandhya Nanavare
Defendant : Adv. Mr. Vijay S. Thakur
Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kharva
-- 1 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 2 of 8
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO.31.
DATE : 21.01.2026
***************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 21st day of January, 2026)
Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.5,64,588.06/- with interest.
1. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover partly unpaid loan of Rs.
5,64,588.06/- with interest @ 10.75% per annum with monthly rests
from the date of filing of suit till payment or realization.
Facts giving rise to the suit are as under :
2. Defendant approached plaintiff bank with a request of Term
loan of Rs.7,15,000/-. On 28.10.2015 / 07.11.2015, plaintiff bank
sanctioned said loan in favour of defendant with 10.95% interest per
annum. It was to be repaid in 84 equal monthly installments of
Rs.12,410.69/-. Accordingly, all necessary documents were executed
between the parties. However, defendant failed to repay full loan, as
agreed. As a result, account of the defendant was treated as Non
Performing Asset with effect from 30.11.2017.
3. Plaintiff sent a legal notice to defendant Dt. 05.03.2019
calling upon defendant to pay the outstanding amount due under said
loan. However, defendant paid no heed. Plaintiff contended that as
defendant failed to repay outstanding loan, hypothecated vehicle was
duly auctioned and sale proceeds credited to loan account on
18.06.2019 (para no. 8 of plaint). As per plaintiff, defendant made last
payment on 28.03.2019 (para no. 13 of plaint). Defendant issued letters
-- 2 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 3 of 8
Dt.08.08.2018, 06.12.2018 and 15.02.2019, which is an
acknowledgment of liability. Plaintiff initiated Pre Institution Mediation
on 19.08.2019. It resulted into Non Starter Dt. 27.01.2020. Hence,
plaintiff filed present suit to recover above referred amount with
interest.
4. Writ of summons was issued to defendant. Plaintiff filed
service affidavit at Exh.5. Initially defendant not appeared in the
proceeding. Hence, ex-parte order was passed on 21.12.2021.
Thereafter, defendant appeared and moved Notice of Motion No.
808/2022 for setting aside ex-parte order. That Notice of Motion was
allowed on 29.03.2022 subject to cost. Defendant deposited cost and
Written Statement was taken on record vide Exh.9.
Crux of Written Statement is as follows :
5. Defendant admitted that he took a loan from Syndicate Bank
for purchasing a vehicle i.e. Maruti Ertiga, which was duly registered
having no. MH-02-CR-6005. As per defendant, upto 27.02.2016 he was
regularly paying EMI but on 27.02.2016 said vehicle met with an
accident. Thereafter, said vehicle was not roadworthy. Defendant made
an insurance claim. After repairs, defendant got his vehicle back in April
2017. Again in September 2017, defendant met with another accident
near Oberoi Mall, Dindoshi with a tourist bus No. MH-04-GP-0668.
Vehicle was again sent to garage and it was not repaid for a long time.
6. Because of these circumstances, it was not possible for
defendant to run his business, earn money and pay EMI regularly. It is
alleged that, recovery officers of plaintiff visited a place where car was
kept for repairing. They took photos. Somewhere in March 2019
-- 3 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 4 of 8
plaintiff contacted defendant for settlement and asked defendant to pay
Rs.2,50,000/-. As defendant could not pay the amount, so the vehicle
was seized. Later on, it was sold in auction.
7. It is contended that, due to pandemic of COVID-19 defendant
was compelled to leave Mumbai. There is a responsibility of entire
family on the defendant. The circumstances were out of control,
therefore, defendant was unable to pay amount. Defendant contended
that, suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable. It is vexatious, false and
baseless. Thus, defendant prayed for dismissal of suit.
8. The then Presiding Officer framed issues on 13.09.2023. To
prove its case, plaintiff examined its authorized officer Anoop Kumar
Singh (PW1) vide Exh.14 and relied on documents vide Exh.15 to 27. I
have heard Learned Advocate for plaintiff. No one appeared for
argument on behalf of defendant.
9. Initially suit was filed by Syndicate Bank. However, Syndicate
Bank amalgamated into Canara Bank. Chamber Summons moved by
plaintiff for amendment in the plaint was allowed on 20.01.2021. On
the very day, amendment was carried out and name of plaintiff is
corrected as Canara Bank. However, said correction was not carried out
in the CIS till this date. Today as per noting in the roznama, said
correction is carried out in the CIS.
10. In view of issues Exh.12 Dt. 13.09.2023, I have recorded my
findings for the reasons discussed as follows:
-- 4 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 5 of 8
Sr.
No.
Issues Findings
1 Does plaintiff prove that, they provided
term loan facility of Rs.7,15,000/- with
interest @ 10.95% per annum on
07.11.2015 to the defendant?
In the Affirmative.
2 Is suit filed within limitation? In the Affirmative.
3 Is plaintiff entitled for recovery of Rs.
5,64,588.06/- with interest @ 10.75% per
annum?
In the Affirmative.
4. Is defendant entitled for compensatory
cost?
In the Negative.
5. What Order? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Issue Nos. 1 to 5
As all issues are interconnected with each other, so they are discussed
together as under :-
11. I have gone through evidence affidavit of Mr. Anoop Kumar
Singh who deposed that he is serving as Senior Manager of plaintiff and
transaction in question relate backs to October 2015 when Syndicate
Bank was not amalgamated in Canara Bank. This witness elaborately
deposed that defendant applied for vehicle loan and it was sanctioned
on 28.10.2015. This witness proved various material documents i.e.
Loan Application Exh.15, Sanction Letter Exh.16, Hypothecation
Agreement Exh.17, Receipt Dt. 07.11.2015 Exh.18, various letters
issued by defendant Exh.21 and importantly statement of loan account
Exh.23.
12. I have gone through these documents, which shows that
-- 5 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 6 of 8
defendant applied for loan to plaintiff for the purpose of his tours and
travel business. Above referred documents are sufficient to say that term
loan of Rs.7,15,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed by plaintiff. Agreed
rate of interest was 10.95% per annum. However, after paying initial
EMIs, defendant failed to make remaining payment and the account
turned NPA.
13. It is undisputed fact that the vehicle was attached by plaintiff,
it was sold in auction and amount Rs.1,05,687/- was credited in the
loan account of defendant on 18.06.2019. More importantly, letters
which are collectively marked as Exh.21 clearly shows that defendant
acknowledged his liability to pay outstanding amount. Account
statement Exh.23 reflect that on 28.03.2019 defendant made last
payment of Rs.5,201.25/-. So, this payment can be considered as
acknowledgment of debt as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
14. Despite of filing Written Statement, defendant failed to
conduct cross examination of plaintiff and not adduced any evidence on
his behalf. In view of above referred acknowledgment of debt, suit
which is lodged on 12.02.2020 is well within limitation. There are so
many documents on record, which speaks about agreed rate of interest
i.e. 10.95% per annum. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve oral and
documentary evidence of plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.
5,64,588/- along with 10.95% interest per annum from the date of suit
till its realization. Hence, I answer issue nos. 1 to 3 in affirmative. For
want of evidence, I answer issue no. 4 in negative. As answer to issue
no. 5, following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 453/2020 is decreed with cost.
-- 6 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 7 of 8
2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5,64,588/- (Rs. Five Lakhs
Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only)
from defendant with 10.95% interest per annum from the
date of suit till realization of entire amount.
3. Defendant shall pay above referred amount and interest to
plaintiff within three months from date of this Judgment.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
6. After compliance and period of Appeal, Shirestedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 21.01.2026
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 7 of 8 --
CS No. 453 / 2020 Canara Bank Vs. Naikba Judgment (Exh.29) 8 of 8
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
21.01.2026 5.30 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
21.01.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 21.01.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 21.01.2026
-- 8 of 8 --