Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: ..1.. Suit No.1405/2019
MHCC010036222019 Presented on : 29/03/2019
Registered on : 13/06/2019
Decided on : 17/11/2025
Duration : 06 Y : 07 M : 20 D
Exhibit : 16
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
SUIT NO.1405 OF 2019
Dena Bank (Deleted)
BANK OF BARODA
having its head office at -
Baroda Bhavan, R C Dutt Road, Alkapuri,
Baroda – 390007, (Gujarat) and Corporate office
at Baroda Corporate Center, G-Block, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 and its
Branch Office amongst at Tardeo Branch, Everest
8-11A, 2nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 034.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ..Plaintiff
Versus
1.
2.
M/s. S. K. Travels, carrying on business at
1006, B-Wing, B-9, New Jaifal Wadi, SRA CHS
Ltd., Mumbai – 400 026.
Shri Nilesh S. Kadam, Prop. of S. K. Travels
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai carrying on
business at 1006, B-Wing, B-9, New Jaifal
Wadi, SRA CHS Ltd., Mumbai – 400 026.
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ..Defendants
Appearance :-
Ld. Adv. Sanjay Upadhyay for plaintiff.
None for defendants.
(Ex-parte)
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
COURT ROOM NO.84.
DATE : 17/11/2025.
-- 1 of 5 --
..2.. Suit No.1405/2019
J U D G M E N T
1) This suit is filed for recovery of amount.
2) The facts in brief are as under -
The plaintiff bank disbursed vehicle loan of Rs.3,60,000/- to
defendants. Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm and defendant
No.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No.1 firm. The defendants had
executed the loan documents like demand promissory note, agreement
of hypothecation and general letter of lien and set-off. Defendants
agreed to repay the loan. However, defendants failed to repay the same
as agreed. Amount of Rs.1,28,712.33/- is due from the defendants. The
demand notice was issued to defendants. Defendants did not comply
the same. Hence, this Suit.
3) The writ of summons was served upon the defendants through
paper publication. Defendants did not appear. Hence, matter proceeded
ex-parte against the defendants.
4) Heard the arguments of plaintiff. In view of aforesaid facts,
following points arise for my determination. I have recorded my
decisions thereon for the reasons as under :
SR.
NO.
POINTS DECISIONS
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
recovery of sum of Rs.1,28,712.33/- as
per the particulars of claim (Exh-F) ? Yes
2. What order and decree ? As per final order.
-- 2 of 5 --
..3.. Suit No.1405/2019
R E A S O N S
5) The authorised person of plaintiff Rabhadia Anup Dinesh has
filed affidavit of examination-in-chief vide Exh-07. Plaintiff has relied
upon documentary evidence produced at Exh-09 to Exh-14.
AS TO POINT NOS.1 & 2 :-
6) PW-1 Rabhadia Anup Dinesh has deposed that, the plaintiff bank
disbursed vehicle loan of Rs.3,60,000/- to defendants. Defendant No.1
is a proprietorship firm and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of
defendant No.1 firm. The defendants had executed the loan documents
like demand promissory note, agreement of hypothecation and general
letter of lien and set-off. Defendants agreed to repay the loan. However,
defendants failed to repay the same as agreed. Amount of
Rs.1,28,712.33/- is due from the defendants. The demand notice was
issued to defendants. Defendants did not comply the same.
7) On perusal of loan documents produced by the plaintiff at Exh-09
to Exh-14, it is evident that defendants had obtained loan of
Rs.3,60,000/-. They had executed demand promissory note, agreement
of hypothecation and general letter of lien and set-off in favour of
plaintiff bank. As per the loan account statement (Exh-13), it is evident
that amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is due from defendants on 12/02/2019.
As per the evidence of plaintiff, amount of Rs.128,712.33/- is due from
defendants. As per the evidence of plaintiff, defendants had agreed to
repay the loan with interest at the rate of 10.60% p.a.. Defendants have
not replied the demand notice. Evidence of plaintiff has remained
unchallenged. The defendants have not contested the suit by filing
appearance and written statement. Therefore, in my view, the claim of
-- 3 of 5 --
..4.. Suit No.1405/2019
plaintiff deserves to be allowed. Hence, while answering point Nos.1 in
affirmative, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. Suit No.1405 of 2019 is decreed with costs.
2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.1,28,712.33/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Eight Thousand Seven
Hundred Twelve and Thirty-Three Paise Only) to
plaintiff with interest at the rate of 10.60% p.a. from
the date of suit till the date of decree and with further
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree
till realization of the amount.
3. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
( Sachin Suryakant Patil )
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, Court No.84
Dated : 17/11/2025
Dictated and typed on : 17/11/2025.
Signed by HHJ on : 17/11/2025.
-- 4 of 5 --
..5.. Suit No.1405/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Sonali S. Naik
Name of Stenographer18/11/2025 05.00 p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
(COURT ROOM NO.84)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
17/11/2025
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17/11/2025
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 18/11/2025
-- 5 of 5 --