Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: SS No. 375/ 2021 State Bank of India Vs.Shahid Anwar Beg Judgment (Exh.12) 1 of 6
MHCC010035442020 Suit Lodged on : 15.07.2020
Suit Admitted on : 05.04.2021
Suit Decided on : 08.07.2026
Duration : 5Y : 11M : 24D
Exhibit : 12
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 83 – Summary Court
Summary Suit No. 375 OF 2021
State Bank of India,
a Banking Corporation constituted under the
provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955 and
having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 400 021 and having one of its local
Head office at Synergy, C-6, “G” Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051 and amongst
others, having its office situated at Small &
Medium Enterprises City Credit Centre
(SMECCC) situated at Jasmine Co-operative
Housing Society, Madhusudan Kalelkar Marg,
Kalanagar, near Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra
(East), Mumbai – 400 051 in the State of
Maharashtra. … Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Shahid Anwar Beg,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation – Driver, of
Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, having his address
situated at Room No.35, 17/29, Ground Floor,
A.K.G. Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Shahu Nagar, Sant
Kabir Marg, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400017. … Defendant.
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. R. J. Singh.
defendants : Ex-parte.
-- 1 of 6 --
SS No. 375/ 2021 State Bank of India Vs.Shahid Anwar Beg Judgment (Exh.12) 2 of 6
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO. 83.
DATE : 08.07.2026.
***************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 08th day of July, 2026)
Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.2,81,435/- with interest.
1. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover Rs.2,81,435/- and also
prayed for interest @ 10.65% per annum on principal amount
Rs.2,37,079/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization of entire
amount.
Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under :
2. Plaintiff is a Statutory Corporation constituted under State
Bank of India Act, 1955. Defendant availed Term loan of Rs.4,26,000/-
from plaintiff for purchasing a Car. Defendant applied for loan on
16.01.2017. It was sanctioned on 31.01.2017. Defendant executed
necessary agreement in favour of plaintiff. However, defendant failed to
repay loan as agreed. Defendant’s loan account was declared Non
Performing Asset (NPA for short) on 30.03.2019. Plaintiff issued legal
notice to defendant on 20.06.2020. As defendant did not repay amount
so present suit is filed.
3. Writ of summons was issued against defendant. Plaintiff filed
service affidavit Exh.03 before the then Presiding Officer. Inspite of
service of writ of summons, defendant did not appear. Hence, suit
proceeded ex-parte against defendant vide order dated 08.10.2022.
-- 2 of 6 --
SS No. 375/ 2021 State Bank of India Vs.Shahid Anwar Beg Judgment (Exh.12) 3 of 6
4. In order to prove its case, plaintiff filed evidence affidavit of
its authorized representative Mr. Sanjeev Shende which is at Exh.04
and relied on various documents vide Exh.06 to Exh.11. I have heard
Ld. Advocate for plaintiff.
5. Considering nature of dispute, following points arise for my
determination and I have recorded my findings for the reasons
discussed as follows:
Sr. Points Findings
1. Does plaintiff prove that defendant
borrowed Term loan on 31.01.2017
and failed to repay as agreed?
In the Affirmative.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover
any amount from defendants with
interest? If yes, what would be that
amount and rate of interest?
Plaintiff is entitled to
recover Rs.2,81,435/-
and entitled to 10.65%
interest p.a. on
Rs.2,37,079/- from the
date of suit till
realization of entire
amount.
3. What Order and decree? Suit is decreed with
costs.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Point Nos. 1 to 3
As all points are interconnected with each other, so they are discussed
together as under :-
6. I have gone through oral evidence of Mr. Sanjeev Shende and
perused documents proved by plaintiff vide Exh.06 to Exh.11. Plaintiff
deposed that though defendant borrowed a Term loan on 31.01.2017
but failed to repay the amount as agreed. Plaintiff’s witness offered his
-- 3 of 6 --
SS No. 375/ 2021 State Bank of India Vs.Shahid Anwar Beg Judgment (Exh.12) 4 of 6
evidence on the basis of authorization Exh.06. Plaintiff proved
defendant’s Term loan application 16.01.2017 Exh.07. Likewise, letter
of arrangement Exh.08 and loan cum hypothecation agreement
31.01.2017 Exh.09 is also proved by plaintiff.
7. Above referred agreement and loan application bears
signature of defendant. Statement of account alongwith NPA Certificate
is at Exh.11. Plaintiff also proved legal notice 20.06.2020 which is at
Exh.10. Thus, primary evidence is placed on record. There is no reason
to disbelieve oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff. Above
documents clearly establish a fact that defendant borrowed Term loan
but failed to repay it.
8. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover amount of
Rs. 2,81,435/-. So far as rate of interest is concerned, plaintiff is
claiming 10.65% p.a. Said interest is an agreed rate of interest. Hence,
plaintiff is entitled to get interest @ 10.65% p.a. on principal amount
Rs.2,37,079/- from the date of suit till realization of entire amount.
9. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 in affirmative and point No.2 as
Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2,81,435/- and entitled to 10.65%
interest p.a. on Rs.2,37,079/- from the date of suit till realization of
entire amount. Suit thus deserves to be decreed with costs. As answer to
point No.3, following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Summary Suit No. 375/2021 is decreed with costs.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2,81,435/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Five only)
and entitled to 10.65% interest p.a. on Rs.2,37,079/-( Rupees
-- 4 of 6 --
SS No. 375/ 2021 State Bank of India Vs.Shahid Anwar Beg Judgment (Exh.12) 5 of 6
Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand and Seventy Nine only)
from the date of suit till realization of entire amount.
3. Defendant shall pay above referred amount with 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, Sheristedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 08.07.2026
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.83 - Summary Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 5 of 6 --
SS No. 375/ 2021 State Bank of India Vs.Shahid Anwar Beg Judgment (Exh.12) 6 of 6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF CLERK-TYPIST
08.07.2026 05.20 p.m. Mrs. Swapnali Jagtap
Clerk-Typist
Name of the Judge Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 83)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
08.07.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 08.07.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 08.07.2026
-- 6 of 6 --