Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment in
Suit No. 992 of 2018 1 Exh. 18
MHCC010024312018
Presented on : 15022018
Registered on : 03042018
Decided on : 20022023
Duration : 5 Y, 0 M, 5 D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.992 OF 2018.
Exh. 18.
ICICI Bank Ltd. ]
a Body Corporate incorporated and registered ]
under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and ]
licensed as a Bank under the Banking ]
Regulation Act 1949 having Registered ]
Office at “ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli ]
Circle,Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390 007, ]
Gujarat, and its Corporate Office at ]
ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra – Kurla Complex, ]
Mumbai – 400 051 through its ]
Power of Attorney Holder ]
Mr. Sameer Bapu Pange ]
Age 37 years, The Debt Manager, ] ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Madhukar Nanaso Pawar ]
Age 35 years, Residing at A 206, ]
Yash Deep, Plot No.22, Sector 09, ]
Kamothe Kalamboli Node, Opp. ]
Dattu Seth School Panvel, Opp ]
Dattu Seth School Panvel, ]
Kalamboli – 410 218. ]
AND ]
Shop at ]
Sneha Jewellers (Proprietor), Sai, ]
-- 1 of 5 --
Judgment in
Suit No. 992 of 2018 2 Exh. 18
Krupa Bldg., Shop No. 3, Plot ]
No. 215, Sector 21, Kamota , 410 209. ]….Defendant.
Appearance:
Adv.Prajakta Sakpal, for the plaintiff
Defendant – Exparte.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
Coram : Shri. S. B. Pawar, Judge
CR No. : 59.
Date :20th February, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.
2,17,475.90/ with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of the
suit.
Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under :
2. Plaintiff is a Public Limited Company under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956, a banking company under the provisions of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and also a Scheduled Bank as per the
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Defendant is the borrower. On the
request of the defendant, plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.2,89,047/ to
the defendant for purchase of vehicle vide loan agreement dated
16.10.2015. Defendant executed hypothecation deed dated 16.10.2015
and irrevocable Power of Attorney. The loan was to be repaid in 60
Equated Monthly Installment (in Short 'EMI') of Rs. 6,227/. The loan
was disbursed and the same was availed by the plaintiff to purchase
motor vehicle being MARUTI ALTO 800 VXI bearing registration No.
MH46AP3391. However, defendant failed and neglected to
-- 2 of 5 --
Judgment in
Suit No. 992 of 2018 3 Exh. 18
regularize the loan account. As on 31.10.2017, an amount of Rs.
2,17,475.90/ is outstanding in the loan account of the defendant.
Plaintiff issued demand notice. However, defendant failed to make the
payment. Thus, the suit.
3. Defendant is duly served with writ of summons but he
failed to appear in the suit. Therefore, the suit proceeded exparte
against the defendant.
4. Heard Ld. advocate for the plaintiff.
5. Following points arise for my determination to which
findings have been recorded for the reasons discussed below.:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1 Whether plaintiff proves that an
amount of Rs.2,17,475/ is due
and payable by the defendant to
the plaintiff?
Yes
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to
recover above amount with
interest? If yes, at what rate?
Yes
Interest at 12 % p.a.
3. What order and decree? Suit is decreed.
REASON
As to Point Nos. 1 to 3.
6. To substantiate the suit claim PW1 Vaibhav Suresh Mirgal
filed his evidence affidavit on the basis of power of attorney at Exh.6
and reiterated the suit claim. The documents produced by the plaintiff
-- 3 of 5 --
Judgment in
Suit No. 992 of 2018 4 Exh. 18
are duly proved in the evidence of the above witness.
7. The application forms at Exhs.7 and 8 show that defendant
applied on 16.10.2015 to plaintiff for loan of Rs.2,89,047/ for purchase
of vehicle. The defendant executed Deed of Hypothecation at Exh.9 in
favour of the plaintiff bank. He also executed Power of Attorney at
Exh.10 in favour of the plaintiff. Exh.11 is Acknowledgment Form by
defendant regarding the loan transaction. Exh.12 consists of terms and
conditions of loan. Exh.13 further provides the details of the loan
sanctioned by plaintiff to defendant. These documents coupled with the
statement of account at Exh.16 establish that plaintiff bank sanctioned
the loan of Rs.2,89,047/ to defendant and as on 13.10.2017, an
amount of Rs.2,17,475/ is due and outstanding in the loan account.
8. Demand notice Exh.15 is duly served upon the defendant.
The suit is within limitation. Defendant has not appeared and contested
the suit. Thus, the pleadings as well as evidence of plaintiff has
remained unchallenged. In these circumstances, the plaintiff bank is
entitled to recover the due amount with agreed rate of interest which is
12% p.a. as per the documents tendered in evidence. Thus, point Nos.
1 & 2 are answered in the affirmative. The suit deserves to be decreed.
Thus, following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Suit No. 992 of 2018 is decreed with costs.
-- 4 of 5 --
Judgment in
Suit No. 992 of 2018 5 Exh. 18
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.2,17,475/ to plaintiff
with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of the suit till
entire amount is realised.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. Suit No. 992 of 2018 is disposed off accordingly.
(S.B. Pawar)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Date.:20.02.2023 Greater Bombay (CR 59).
Declared on : 20.02.2023
Dictated on : 20.02.2023
Transcribed on : 03.03.2023
Checked on : 04.03.2023
Signed on : 10.03.2023
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
14.03.2023 at 3.00 p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI.S.B.Pawar,(C.R.No.59)
Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 20.02.2023
Order signed by P.O. on 04.03.2023
order uploaded on 14.03.2023
-- 5 of 5 --