Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
Lodged on : 13/03/2018
Registered on : 19/07/2018
Decided on: 04/03/2020
Duration : 01:Y / 07:M / 17:D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 233 OF 2020
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 1814 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC01-003572-2018)
Bank of India )
A Body Corporate constituted under the )
Banking Companies (Acquisition and )
Transfer of Undertakings)Act V of 1970 )
having its Head Office at “Star House”, )
C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, )
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051, and )
A Branch Office amongst other places at )
J.J.Flyover Branch, Oriental Bhavan, )
211 Sheriff Devji Street, Opp. Mahatma )
Phule Market, Mumbai-400003, )
Through its Constituted Attorney )
Shri Harikumar S. Senior Manager (Law) )
Inhabitant Indian 43 years aged )
V/s.
Mr. Gobind Premchand Thakur )
Alia Mr.Govind Prem Thakur alias )
Mr.Govind Ram Thakur )
Indian Inhabitant, aged 31 years, )
Room No. 222, Group-5A, Valmiki Nagar, )
Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli(E), )
Mumbai-400083. )...Defendant.
-- 1 of 7 --
2
Appearance:-
Advocate Vaishali Kurne for plaintiff.
Ex-parte against the defendant.
CLAIM: RECOVERY OF AMOUNT.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI R.V.KOKARE
DATE :04/03/2020 (C.R.No.31)
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff bank for recovery of amount of Rs.
9,55,103 (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Three
only) with further interest @ 9.90% p.a.
Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff bank are as under:
2. The defendant requested for a term loan for an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- to purchase a brand new four wheeler car namely
'Volkswagen' and submitted the proforma invoice dated 16.10.2015 of
the dealer namely M/s. Volkswagen for total amount of
Rs.10,49,000.16 p.s. The plaintiff bank sanctioned a term loan for an
amount of Rs.8,00,000 dated 10.11.2015 after executing concern
documents in favour of the plaintiff bank.
3. The defendant has availed the loan to the fullest extent and has
played fraud with plaintiff and at present the Branch Officials could not
identify the defendant at the given address mentioned in the cause title
and the address given in the cause title are the last known address of
the defendant. Neither the defendant, nor the vehicle is traceable. The
account of the defendant has been classified as NPA on 30.06.2016. The
plaintiff through its advocate issued a legal notice dated 12.01.2018 to
-- 2 of 7 --
3
the defendant, at the last known address and demanding from them a
sum of Rs.9,41,449/- and further interest thereon.
4. The plaintiff further states that the plaintiff made payment of
sanctioned limit i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- to the account of the dealer i.e.
M/s.Volkswagen, Mumbai (west) through RTGS on 10.11.2015 an
amount of Rs.9,55,103/- inclusive of interest up to 12.03.2018. The
defendant has executed the documents of loan and securities on
10.11.2015. The suit is filed on 13.03.2018 i.e. within three years from
the date of execution of the documents. Thus, the suit is filed within the
period of limitation. Hence, this suit.
5. The suit is duly served on the defendant but the defendant
remained absent. Therefore, ex-parte order passed against the
defendant dated 04.01.2019.
6. In view of pleadings of the plaintiff and arguments advanced on
behalf of the plaintiff bank, following points arose for my consideration.
I have recorded my findings against each of the points alongwith my
reasons are as follows:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Does the plaintiff bank proves amount
of Rs.9,55,103/- is due against the
defendant?
Yes.
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover
amount of Rs.9,55,103/- from the
defendant alongwith further interest
@9.90% p.a. ?
Yes.
3. What order and decree? As per final order.
-- 3 of 7 --
4
REASONS
7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff has
examined its witness PW No. 1- Harikumar S. Chief Manager of the
plaintiff bank at Exhibit-6. In support of oral evidence of the PW No. 1,
the plaintiff bank produced documentary evidence under list of
document at Exh.7. It is pertinent to note that the oral as well as
documentary evidence of the plaintiff bank has gone unchallenged.
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :-
8. On scrutiny of the oral evidence of PW No. 1- Harikumar S.,
Chief Manager of the plaintiff bank, it appears to me that the evidence
of PW No. 1 is noting but it is the reproduction of the contents of the
plaint. The PW No. 1 has deposed that, the defendant requested for a
term loan for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to purchase a brand new four
whiller car namely 'Volkswagen' and submitted the proforma invoice
dated 16.10.2015 of the dealer namely M/s. Volkswagen for total
amount of Rs. 10,49,000.16 p.s. The plaintiff bank sanctioned a term
loan for an amount of 8,00,000 dated 10.11.2015 after executing
concern documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant has
availed the loan to the fullest extent and has played fraud with plaintiff
and at present the branch officials could not identify the defendant at
the given address mentioned in the cause title and the address given in
the cause title are the last known address of the defendant. Neither the
defendant, nor the vehicle is traceable. The account of the defendant
has been classified as NPA on 30.06.2016. The plaintiff through its
advocate issued a legal notice dated 12.01.2018 to the defendant, at the
last known address and demanding from them a sum of Rs. 9,41,449/-
and further interest thereon. The PW-1 further deposed that, the
plaintiff made payment of sanctioned limit i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- to the
-- 4 of 7 --
5
account of the dealer i.e.M/s. Volkswagen, Mumbai (west) through
RTGS on 10.11.2015 an amount of Rs.9,55,103/- inclusive of interest
up to 12.03.2018. The defendant has executed the documents of loan
and securities on 10.11.2015. The suit is filed on 13.03.2018 i.e. within
three years from the date of execution of the documents. Thus, the suit
is filed within the period of limitation.
9. In support of oral evidence of the PW-1 the plaintiff bank has
produced documentary evidence under list of document at Exh.7. The
documents are, proforma invoice dated 16.10.2015 at Exh.8,
Sanctioned letter dated 10.11.2015 at Exh.9, demand promissory note
dated 10.11.2015 at Exh. 10, letter dated 10.11.2015 at Exh. 11, Letter
dated 10.11.2015 at Exh. 12, Letter dated 10.11.2015 at Exh. 13,
Hypothecation cum loan agreement dated 10.11.2015 at Exh. 14, Multi-
purpose agreement dated 10.11.2015 at Exh.17, Complaint dated
28.07.2016 at Exh.18, Advocate legal notice dated 12.01.2018 at
Exh.19, Statement of account at Exh. 20, particulars of claim at Exh. 21.
10. From above my discussion, I come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff bank has proved that amount of Rs.9,55,103/- is due against
the defendant. The plaintiff bank has also proved that the plaintiff bank
is entitled to recover amount of Rs.9,55,103/- alongwith further interest
@ 9.90% p.a. Therefore, I have answered on the point nos. 1 and 2 are
in affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
2. The defendant shall pay amount of Rs.9,55,103( Rupees Nine
Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Three only) with further
interest @ 9.90%p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its
-- 5 of 7 --
6
realization.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(R.V.Kokare)
Judge,
Date :04/03/2020. City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Directly dictated on
Computer : 04/03/2020
Signed by HHJ: 05/03/2020
-- 6 of 7 --
7
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
06/03/2020 5.00p.m. Mrs. V.V.Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri R.V.Kokare(CR
No.31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
04/03/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 05/03/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 06/03/2020
-- 7 of 7 --