Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: ..1.. S.C. Suit No.1123/2018
MHCC010038732018 Presented on : 21/03/2018
Registered on : 17/04/2018
Decided on : 09/01/2024
Duration : 05Y 09M 20D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
S. C. SUIT NO.1123 OF 2018
Syndicate Canara Bank, a body corporate
Constituted and functioning under the act
Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head office at
Manipal, 112, J. C. Road, Bangalore.
Karnataka State, and having one of their Branch
Office at Gurudev Mansion, Matunga Estate,
KAS Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Amended as per order
dated 03/10/2023
..Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s. Sushant Tours & Travels,
Proprietary concern through its proprietor
Mr. Sushantkumar Vijaybahadur Singh
Room No.17, Siddhivinayak Chawl,
Lokmanya Nagar, Pada No.2, Pokharan Road
No.1, Thane (West) – 400 606.
]
]
]
]
]
] ..Defendant
Appearance :-
Learned Adv. Sujata Dahigaonkar for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
(Ex-parte)
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHAIKH AKBAR SHAIKH JAFAR
COURT ROOM NO.84.
DATE : 09/01/2024
J U D G M E N T
1 Instant suit is filed for recovery of amount. The plaintiff
bank has come with the case that plaintiff bank is a corporate body
constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970, and having its Head Office at 112, J. C. Road,
Bangalore – 560 002, and one of its Branch Office at Gurudev Mansion,
-- 1 of 6 --
..2.. S.C. Suit No.1123/2018
Matunga Estate, KAS Road, Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019. The plaintiff
is carrying on business of bankers.
2 It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant approached the
plaintiff bank for term loan for Rs.6,50,000/- for purchasing vehicle
being Honda Amaze. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of
Rs.6,50,000/- for purchase of car, upon agreeing with the terms and
conditions of the bank by the defendant. It is further contended by the
plaintiff bank that the defendant agreed to repay the said loan in 48
equated monthly installments of Rs.16,784/- each. In consequence to
the sanction of loan, the defendant has executed following documents
in favour of plaintiff :-
(i) Application for credit facilities to micro and small
enterprises dated 21/07/2015.
(ii) Letter of sanction dated 18/11/2015.
(iii) Particulars of Assets and liabilities dated 21/10/2015.
(iv) Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 19/11/2015.
(v) Receipt dated 19/11/2015.
(vi) Letter of undertaking from the borrower for compliance of
post release terms and conditions dated 19/11/2015.
(vii) Authority letter to debit monthly installments dated
19/11/2015.
(viii) Confirmation of delivery of vehicle dated 19/11/2015.
(ix) Addendum to agreement dated 19/11/2015.
3 It is further contended by the plaintiff that the said loan
was disbursed to the defendant, but he failed and neglected to repay
the same. Therefore, the plaintiff bank has attached the hypothecated
vehicle and auctioned the same. The plaintiff bank has received the sale
-- 2 of 6 --
..3.. S.C. Suit No.1123/2018
proceeds amount of Rs.1,92,500/-, same was credited towards the loan
account. After the adjustment of the sale proceed amount, the amount
of Rs.3,64,129/- remained outstanding as on 18/03/2018. Thereafter,
plaintiff issued notice calling upon the defendant to pay the amount
outstanding, but in vain. Thus, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of due
amount alongwith interest.
4 The summons were served upon the defendant, but
remained absent, therefore, as per
roznama dated 05/06/2018, suit
proceeded ex-parte against the defendant.
5 Having regard to the contentions of plaintiff, following
points arise for my determination and I have recorded my findings
thereon for the reasons thereunder :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does the plaintiff prove that the
defendant is in due of amount of
Rs.3,64,129/- ?
Affirmative
2 Does the plaintiff prove that the
defendant failed to repay the loan as
agreed ?
Affirmative
3 Does the plaintiff prove that it is entitled
to charge interest as prayed for ?
Partly Affirmative
4 Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs
sought ?
Partly Affirmative
5 What order ? As per final order.
REASONS
6 In order to substantiate the contentions, the authorised
person of plaintiff entered the witness box and relied upon various
-- 3 of 6 --
..4.. S.C. Suit No.1123/2018
documents (Exhibit-9 to 19 colly) under list (Exhibit-08). Heard learned
advocate for plaintiff.
As to point Nos.1 to 3 :-
7 The evidence of authorised person of plaintiff remain
unchallenged. The record discloses that the defendant has executed the
loan document in favour of the bank, availed the loan facility, but failed
to repay as agreed. The Statement of Account shows that the defendant
has lastly paid an amount of Rs.12,507.76/- on 08/02/2017, thereafter,
failed to repay the installments towards loan and as per the record,
bank has attached the hypothecated vehicle and auctioned the same.
The bank has received the sale proceed amount of Rs.1,92,500/-, same
was credited towards the loan account. After adjustment of the sale
proceed amount, the amount of Rs.3,64,129/- remain outstanding as on
18/03/2018. The default of the defendant shows that it has deliberately
avoided to pay the loan amount, thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for
recovery of the same. Hence, I am of the view that the plaintiff bank is
entitled for interest from the date of default i.e. 18/03/2018, till
realisation of entire due amount i.e. Rs.3,64,129/-.
8 The defendant remained absent though served, matter
proceeded ex-parte which is sufficient to draw an inference that the
defendant has not repaid the due amount and committed default. The
plaintiff bank having business of banking is based on the public fund,
therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the due amount from
the defendant as prayed for. In view of above discussions, I answer
point Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative.
-- 4 of 6 --
..5.. S.C. Suit No.1123/2018
9 So far as interest is concerned, the plaintiff is claiming
interest at the rate of 12.75% per annum from the defendant. No doubt
the plaintiff has suffered loss in business and profit, due to failure to
repay the amount by the defendant. Had it been paid to the plaintiff as
per demand, they would have invested and would have earned profit
therefrom. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of default i.e.
18/03/2018, till its full realisation. In view of above discussions, I
answer point No.3 in partly affirmative.
10 As the plaintiff bank is made constrained to file the suit for
recovery of loan amount, therefore, defendant is liable to pay the costs
of suit. In the result, I answer point No.4 accordingly and proceed to
pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. S. C. Suit No.1123/2018 is hereby partly decreed with
costs.
2. Plaintiff do recover an amount of Rs.3,64,129/- from
the defendant with further interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from 18/03/2018, till the recovery of
entire amount.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
( Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar )
Judge,
City Civil Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai
Dated : 09/01/2024 C.R. No.84
Typed on : 09/01/2024
Draft corrected on : 09/01/2024
Signed on : 09/01/2024
-- 5 of 6 --
..6.. S.C. Suit No.1123/2018
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
10/01/2024
at about 5.30 p.m.
(Ms. Sonali S. Sawant)
Stenographer (Grade-III)
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar,
Judge, City Civil Court &
Addl. Sessions Judge, Court
Room No.84, Mazgaon, Mumbai
Date of pronouncement of Order : 09/01/2024
Order signed by Hon'ble Judge on : 09/01/2024
Order uploaded on : 10/01/2024
at about 5.30 p.m.
-- 6 of 6 --