Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Comm. Suit No.1692021
MHCC010028312020 Presented on : 04/03/2020
Registered on : 22/03/2021
Decided on : 13/07/2022
Duration : 01Y 03M 21D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
COMMERCIAL SUIT No.169 OF 2021
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, Banglore,
Karnataka State and having one of their
Branch office at 10, Homji Street Branch
Fort, Mumbai400 023.
Through Vandana Nadkarni, Age 56 years …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Mr. Sagir Travels
A Proprietary Concern, through its
Proprietor: Mr. Aslam Nabi Hussain Khan
at 69 2/2, Din Bandhu Nagar, Sal Pan
Road, Wadala(E), Mumbai, Maharashtra
400037. ...DEFENDANT
Smt. Sujata Dahigaonkar, learned advocate for plaintiff.
Defendants : exparte.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI. N.P. TRIBHUWAN
(C.R.NO.32)
E XP A R T E J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 13/07/2022)
This is a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.10,44,539.71
alongwith interest @ 9.75% p.a.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Comm. Suit No.1692021
2. It is case of plaintiff that plaintiff that it is Nationalized
Bank, a body corporate under the Banking Companies(Acquisitions and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act. Defendant requested the plaintiff or term
loan facility. On 31.12.2016 on the request of defendant the plaintiff
has sanctioned him term loan facility of Rs.14,75,000/ with interest
@10.95 %p.a. compounded monthly for purchase of vehicle Toyota
Innova Crysta Gx for commercial purpose. The said loan facility was
repayable in 84 months installments of Rs.25,025/ each.
3. Following documents were executed in connection with
loan facility availed by defendant.: Obligation dtd.30.12.2016 of
defendant for sanctioning loan, sanction letter dtd.29.12.2016,
composite hypothecation agreement dtd.30.12.2016 executed by
defendant in favour of plaintiff, receipt dtd.31.12.2016, assets and
liabilities dtd.30.12.2016 and letter of authority to debit monthly
installments.
4. After availing loan facility, the defendant was not regular
in paying loan installments despite several reminders, defendant failed
to regularize the account and hence, the account was treated as NPA on
30.04.2019. On 07.05.2019 plaintiff has issued notice to defendant and
called upon him to pay outstanding due within seven days. As per
statement of account as on 02.03.2020, defendant is liable to pay sum
of Rs.10,44,539.71 together with interest @ 9.75% p.a. with monthly
rests from the date of filing of suit till realisation of the amount.
Therefore, plaintiff filed this suit.
5. Defendant served with suit summons but he did not
appear. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against him.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Comm. Suit No.1692021
6. On above facts following points arise for determination and
this court and recorded findings thereon for the reasons stated as under.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff proved that it has
sanctioned and disbursed term loan of
Rs.14,75,000/ to plaintiff with interest @
10.95% p.a. on 31.12.2016?
…Yes.
2. Whether the plaintiff proved that
defendant is in outstanding of loan amount
of Rs.10,44,539/ ?
…Yes
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
Rs.10,44,539/ with interest @ 9.75% ? …Yes
4. What order and decree? ...As per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT Nos.1 To 3:
7. Heard learned counsel of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has examined
its manager Vinay K. Vaidhya. He reproduced all content of plaint in his
chiefexamination. His evidence is supported by documentary
evidence(Exh.12 to 19):Loan application, sanction letter, composite
hypothecation agreement, receipt dtd.31.12.2016, particulars of assets
and liability, letter of authority to debit monthly installment, recall
notice dtd.07.05.2019 and statement of account.
8. In view of evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence, it
becomes clear that defendant availed term loan of Rs.14,75,000/ on
31.12.2016. He agreed to repay the same in 84 monthly installment of
Rs.25,025/ each with interest @10.95% p.a. compounded monthly. He
has executed documents at the time of availing loan facility. Evidence of
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Comm. Suit No.1692021
PW1 remained unchallenged. His evidence is supported by
documentary evidence mentioned in para supra. There is no reason to
disbelieve his testimony. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for the relief
claimed. Thus, I answered point Nos. 1 to 3 as above. Hence, I pass the
following order.
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. The defendant is directed to pay Rs.10,44,539/ with
interest @ 9.75%p.a. with monthly rests from the date of
suit till realisation amount to the plaintiff.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Date : 13/07/2022.
(N.P. Tribhuwan)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Mumbai. C.R.No.32
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Comm. Suit No.1692021
Dictated on : 13/07/2022
Checked on : 13/07/2022
Signed on : 13/07/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
13/07/2022 Mrs.Rupali S. Bhor
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR
No.)
HHJ SHRI. N. P. TRIBHUVAN
(C.R.No.32)
Date of pronouncement of Order 13/07/2022
Order signed by P.O. on 13/07/2022
Order uploaded on 13/07/2022
-- 5 of 5 --