Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010041752018 Presented on : 27-03-2018
Registered on : 18-03-2019
Decided on : 17-12-2021
Duration : Y M D
03 08 20
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.1005 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.796 OF 2019)
Ex.22
Dena Bank, Bank of Baroda, a body corporate
constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
& transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head
Office at Dena Bank of Baroda Corporate Center,
C10, 'G' block, BandraKurla Complex,
Bandra(E), Mumbai400 051, and its
Branch office amongst others known As
situated at as Dena Bank, Bank of Baroda,
Khodadad Circle Dadar Branch,
Imperial Mahal, Mumbai400014,
State of Maharashtra, represented by
Mr.Aazar Ansari, Age: Years,
the Chief Manager ..Plaintiff
V/S
1.M/s. Divya Cabs
Proprietor Shri Ramesh Narayan Singh
Navjeevan CHS Ltd.,
Bldg. No.68, Flat No.408/4,
New Mahada Colony, Kopri Agar,
Sion Koliwada, Antop Hill,
Mumbai400 037
Also at,
-- 1 of 6 --
2
Room No.3036, Sangam Nagar,
S.P.Road, Chikhalwadi, Antop
Hill, New Dosti Complex,
Wadala(E), Mumbai400037.
2. Shri Ramesh Narayan Singh
Age: Not known, Adult,
Proprietor M/s. Divya Cabs
Navjeevan CHS Ltd.,
Bldg. No.68, Flat No.408/4,
New Mahada Colony, Kopri Agar,
Sion Koliwada, Antop Hill,
Mumbai400 037
Also at,
Room No.3036, Sangam Nagar,
S.P.Road, Chikhalwadi, Antop
Hill, New Dosti Complex,
Wadala(E), Mumbai400037. ..Defendants
__________________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate Saraswati Purohit for plaintiff.
Defendants Exparte._______________________________________
JUDGMENT
(Dated this 17th day of December, 2021)
1. Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,53,524.20/
with interest @ 11.75% p.a.
2. Relevant facts in the plaint may be summarized as
under:
Plaintiff is a banking institution constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)Act
1970. Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm. Defendant No.2 is
proprietor of defendant No.1firm. Defendant No.2 approached
plaintiff bank for term loan of Rs. 7 lacs by making an application
-- 2 of 6 --
3
under SRTO Advances. The plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 7
lacs to defendants. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly
installments. Defendants also executed necessary documents such
as Demand Promissory Note, Hypothecation of vehicle and Letter
of acknowledgment of debt. However, defendants failed to make
regular repayment of monthly installments. Therefore, plaintiff
bank send notice dated 06/12/2017 through advocate calling
upon the defendants to pay the outstanding dues as mentioned
therein with further interest. Inspite of service of notice,
defendants failed to make the payment. Hence, this suit.
3. Suit summons were deemed to be served to
defendants as per service affidavit(Ex.6). But, defendants failed to
tender their appearance before the Court. Therefore, suit
proceeded exparte against defendants by order dated
11/10/2021.
4. Heard Ld. advocate for plaintiff.
5. Following points arise for determination, findings
thereon for the reasons to follow are as under:
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Does the plaintiff prove that an
amount of Rs.6,53,524.20/ is
outstanding against the
defendants?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is partly decreed as
per final order.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
REASONS
Point No.1
6. In order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff bank filed
evidence affidavit of it's officer PW1 Rajender Kaw (Exh.8). He
reiterated all the facts pleaded in the plaint. He testifies that loan
amount of Rs.7 lacs was disbursed to the defendants as per loan
application. Defendants executed documents such as Demand
Hypothecation deed(Ex.14) and Promissory Note(Ex.15).
However, defendants failed to repay the loan amount.
7. The oral evidence adduced by plaintiff bank is well
supported by the documents filed on record. The documents show
that loan amount of Rs.7 lacs was disbursed to the defendants.
Defendants were required to repay the loan amount in 60
monthly installments. But, defendants failed to repay the
outstanding amount.
8. As discussed supra, the defendants failed to contest
the suit and therefore the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank
remain unchallenged. From the plaintiff's evidence, it is proved
that an amount of Rs.6,53,524.20/ is outstanding against the
defendants. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get decree for the
said amount. Plaintiff bank claimed interest at the rate of
11.75%p.a. The loan application letter (Ex.15) alongwith sanction
order shows the agreed rate of interest as 11.75% p.a. Thus,
plaintiff is entitled to the interest at the rate of 11.75% p.a. from
the date of filing of the suit till it's realization.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
9. As discussed supra, the defendants failed to contest
the suit and therefore the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank
remain unchallenged. From the plaintiff's evidence, it is proved
that an amount of Rs. 6,53,524.20/ is outstanding against the
defendants. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get decree for the
said amount alongwith interest as prayed for. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly. In the result, following order:
ORDER
1. Suit is partly decreed with costs.
2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.6,53,524.20/
(Rupees Six Lacs, Fifty Three Thousand, Five Hundred
and Twenty Four and Paise Twenty only) alongwith
interest @ 11.75% p.a. to plaintiff from the date of the
suit till it's realization within two months.
3. Court fees be refunded as per (E) Rules framed under
Section 11(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948,
for the refund of Institution Fee.
4. Decree thus follow.
17/12/2021 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 17/12/2021
Transcribed on : 17/12/2021
Signed on : 17/12/2021
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
18/12/21 at 05.30 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order 17/12/21
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 17/12/21
Judgment/order uploaded on 18/12/21
-- 6 of 6 --