Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
MHCC010020192020
Lodged on : 15.02.2020
Admitted on : 22.03.2021
Decided on : 29.08.2022
Duration : Y M D
2 6 14
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 166 OF 2021
CNR NO : MHCC010020192020
Exh.18
Canara Bank , a body corporate
constituted and functioning under
Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970,
having its Head officer at 112, J.C. Road,
Banglore, Karnataka State and having
one of their Branch office at 10, Homji
Street Branch Fort, Mumbai – 400 023.
Through Vandana Nadkarni
Age 56 years ...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Sohi Tours and Travels
A Proprietary Concern, through its
Proprietor : Amarjeet Harchand Singh Sohi
Aged 64 years, Indian Inhabitant,
At Room No. : C5, Megha CHSL No. 9,
SVP Nagar, MHADA, Near Versova Telephone
Exchange, 4 Bungalows, Andheri (W),
Mumbai. Maharashtra. ...Defendant
Appearance:
Adv. Sujata Dahigaonkar for Plaintiff.
defendant exparte.
-- 1 of 8 --
2 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
CORAM : SHRI. A.S.SALGAR
ADHOC JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.31)
DATED : 29th AUGUST 2022
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on : 29.08.2022)
The plaintiff bank has filed the present suit for recovery of
the amount of Rs.3,80,654.76ps. along with interest at the rate of
10.75% per annum from the defendant.
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as under:
2. The plaintiff is a nationalized bank, a body corporate
constituted, established and functioning under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act 1970. The defendant
had approached the plaintiff for availing loan by way of vehicle loan
upto the extent of Rs.6,65,000/ for the purchase of vehicle being
Maruti Swift Dzire. The defendant had applied on 16.02.2016 for
availing the vehicle loan with the plaintiff's branch office. Pursuant to
the defendant's request, on 11.03.2016, the plaintiff after complying all
the terms and conditions of the loan facility, sanctioned said vehicle
loan of Rs.6,65,000/ against the Hypothecation and charge upon the
said vehicle. The plaintiff submits that the said loan was sanctioned and
the same was to be repaid in installments along with interest at the rate
of 10.95%. After the sanction of the said loan, the said loan amount was
remitted to the account of defendant. The plaintiff further submitted
that it sanctioned the said loan on the condition that, the defendant has
to execute the Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 08.03.2016
-- 2 of 8 --
3 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
in the plaintiff's favour thereby hypothecating the above vehicle. After
availing the said loan, the defendant purchased the vehicle. The
defendant agreed to repay the loan facility availed by him for the
contractual period together with interest. In pursuance of said sanction
from the plaintiff, the defendant has availed the said vehicle loan to the
extent of Rs. 6,65,,000/ for the purchase of vehicle.
3. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant was not
regular in repayment of said loan. Thereafter, inspite of repeated
requests and demands, the defendant has failed and neglected to repay
the loan installments regularly, which resulted into classification of loan
account as NPA. According to the plaintiff, the total amount of
Rs.3,80,654.76ps. is outstanding from the defendant. Inspite of
repeated requests and demands, the defendant failed to repay the
amount. Hence, the plaintiff by its Advocate's legal notice dated
01.03.2019 called upon the defendant to repay the loan amount. The
said notice was sent through registered post. The legal notice sent to the
defendant has been duly received and acknowledged by him. Defendant
failed to comply said notice. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present
suit for the recovery of the amount of Rs.3,80,654.76ps. with further
rate of interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum.
4. The suit summons was duly served on the defendant. But
the defendant failed to appear before the Court. Hence, in view of order
dated 09.08.2022, the suit is proceeded exparte against the defendant.
5. In support of the claim, the plaintiff bank examined its
authorized representative namely Mr. Vinay Vaidhya at Exh.4. The
-- 3 of 8 --
4 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
plaintiff also filed the documents list Exh.6 to 16. The evidence closure
pursis of the plaintiff is at Exh.17.
6. After considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and evidence
on record, following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded my finding against each of them with the reasons to follows:
POINTS FINDING
1) Whether plaintiff proves that an
amount of Rs.3,80,654.76ps. is due
from the defendant?
In the affirmative.
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to
recover an amount of
Rs.3,80,654.76ps. from the
defendant? If yes, at what rate of
interest ?
In the affirmative.
At the rate of Rs.10.75% per
annum.
3) What order and decree? Suit is decreed with costs.
R E A S O N S
7. Heard Learned Advocate Ms. Sujata Dahigaonkar for the
plaintiff.
8. As per the submission of the plaintiff, the loan was
obtained by the defendant on 11.03.2016. The loan account has been
treated as Non Performing Asset. Last payment was made by defendant
on 22.01.2019. Suit was filed on 15.02.2020. If the said period is
calculated, it is found that the suit is filed within three years from the
last payment. Hence, the suit is within limitation.
-- 4 of 8 --
5 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
As to point nos. 1 & 2
9. Both these points are interconnected with each other.
Hence, for avoiding repetition of evidence, I discuss both these points
simultaneously. According to the plaintiff, on the request of the
defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.6,65,000/ to the
defendant for purchasing vehicle. The defendant executed various
documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and thereby agreed to repay
the loan amount with interest. However, the defendant failed to repay
the loan amount. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, an amount of
Rs.3,80,654.76ps. is outstanding from the defendant. In support of the
pleading, the plaintiff bank examined its officer namely Mr. Vinay
Vaidhya at Exh.4. He deposed in support of the suit claim. The oral
evidence of the plaintiff is in consonance with the averment made in the
plaint. The aforesaid oral evidence of the plaintiff is not challenged by
the defendant. The defendant failed to conduct the cross examination of
the plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff cannot be
disbelieved.
10. The oral evidence of the plaintiff is supported by
documentary evidence at Exh.6 to 16. Letter of Sanction at Exh.7 shows
that the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.6,65,000/ to the
defendant with rate of interest of 10.75% per annum. Accordingly, the
defendant has executed Hypothecation Agreement, Receipt and
Particulars of Assets and Liabilities of the Individual/ Parters/
Directors/ Coobligants/ Guarantors to debit installment in favour of
the plaintiff bank. All these documents along with oral evidence of
P.W.1 proved that the defendant obtained loan of Rs.6,65,000/ from
the plaintiff bank along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum.
-- 5 of 8 --
6 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
The statement of account at Exh.14 shows that on 31.01.2020, an
amount of Rs.3,80,654.76ps. is due and payable from the defendant.
The particulars of the claim is also filed. The defendant has failed to pay
the outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
11. The oral and documentary evidence tendered by the
plaintiff was not challenged by the defendant. Therefore, I have no
reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff. In short, the plaintiff by
leading oral and documentary evidence sufficiently established that the
amount of Rs.3,80,654.76ps. is outstanding from the defendant. Hence,
the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant.
12. So far as interest rate is concerned, the plaintiffs have
claimed interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum. The said interest at
the rate of 10.75% per annum would be just and proper considering
commercial nature of transaction. Costs of the suit is liable to be
imposed on the defendant. In the light of above discussion, I record my
finding as to points nos. 1 in the affirmative and point no. 2
accordingly. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1) Commercial Suit No. 166 of 2021 is decreed with costs.
2) The defendant do pay an amount of Rs.3,80,654.76 (Rs.
Three lakhs eighty thousand six hundred fifty four and
seventy six paise only) to the plaintiff along with
interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum on principal
amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization
within 3 months from the date of this decree.
-- 6 of 8 --
7 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
3) Defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.
4) Court fee, if any, be refunded as per rule.
5) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment pronounced in the open Court)
Dated : 29.08.2022 (A.S. Salgar)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 29.08.2022
Typed on : 30.08.2022
-- 7 of 8 --
8 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 166/2021
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
30.08.2022 5.50 p.m. Mrs. Manasi M. Kadam
Stenographer Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. A.S. Salgar
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
29.08.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 30.08.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 30.08.2022
-- 8 of 8 --