Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
Lodged on : 04.06.2019
Admitted on : 01.08.2019
Decided on : 25.08.2022
Duration : Y M D
3 2 21
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 70 OF 2019
CNR NO : MHCC010055692019
Exh.9
Dena Bank, a body corporate constituted …. Deleted
under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
& Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970,
having its Corporate Office at Dena
Corporate Center, C10, GBlock, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 400 051 and its Branch Office
amongst at Tardeo Branch, Everest 811A,
2nd Floor, Tardeo Road Mumbai400 034.
Bank of Baroda, a body corporate
constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970, having its head office at Baroda
Bhavan, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri,
Baroda – 390007 (Gujarat) and
Corporate Office at Baroda Corporate
Center, GBlock, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 and its
Branch office amongst at Tardeo Branch,
Everest 811A, 2 nd Floor, Tardeo Road,
Mumbai – 400 034. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Raviraj Travels, carrying on business
at House No. 565, Row House, Road Pali,
-- 1 of 8 --
2 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
A Post Navade, Near Market Road, Kalamboli,
Panvel, Raigad – 410 206.
2. Mr. Ravindra V. Sakpal, Prop. of M/s. Raviraj
Travels Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai carrying
on business at House No. 565, Row House, Road Pali,
A Post Navade, Near Market Road, Kalamboli,
Panvel, Raigad – 410 206. ...Defendants
Appearance:
Adv. Ms. Karuna Adangale for Plaintiff.
Defendants exparte.
CORAM : SHRI. A.S.SALGAR
ADHOC JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.31)
DATED : 25th AUGUST 2022
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on : 25.08.2022)
The plaintiff bank has filed the present suit for recovery of
the amount of Rs.4,93,967.32ps. along with interest at the rate of
11.30% per annum from the defendants.
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as under:
2. The plaintiff is a nationalized bank, a body corporate
constituted, established and functioning under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act 1970. The defendant
no. 1 is proprietorship firm of which the defendant no. 2 is a sole
proprietor. The defendant no. 2 had approached the plaintiff for
availing loan by way of vehicle loan upto the extent of Rs.8,00,000/ for
the purchase of vehicle. The defendants had applied on 27.01.2017 for
availing the vehicle loan with the plaintiff's branch office. Pursuant to
the defendants' request, on 27.01.2017, the plaintiff after complying all
the terms and conditions of the loan facility, sanctioned said vehicle
-- 2 of 8 --
3 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
loan of Rs.8,00,000/ against the Hypothecation and charge upon the
said vehicle. The plaintiff submits that the said loan was sanctioned and
the same was to be repaid in installments along with interest at the rate
of 11.30%. After the sanction of the said loan, the said loan amount was
remitted to the account of defendants. The plaintiff further submitted
that it sanctioned the said loan on the condition that, the defendants
have to execute the Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated
30.01.2017 in the plaintiff's favour thereby hypothecating the above
vehicle. After availing the said loan, the defendants purchased the
vehicle. The defendants have agreed to repay the loan facility availed by
them for the contractual period together with interest. In pursuance of
said sanction from the plaintiff, the defendants have availed the said
vehicle loan to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000/ for the purchase of vehicle.
3. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants were
not regular in repayment of said loan. Thereafter, inspite of repeated
requests and demands, the defendants have failed and neglected to
repay the loan installments regularly, which resulted into classification
of loan account as NPA. According to the plaintiff, the total amount of
Rs.4,93,967.32ps. is outstanding from the defendants. Inspite of
repeated requests and demands, the defendants failed to repay the
amount. Hence, the plaintiff by its Advocate's legal notice dated
19.03.2019 called upon the defendants to repay the loan amount. The
said notice was sent through registered post. The legal notice sent to the
defendant nos. 1 and 2 has been duly received and acknowledged by
them. Defendants failed to comply said notice. Hence, the plaintiff has
filed the present suit for the recovery of the amount of
Rs.4,93,967.32ps. with further rate of interest at the rate of 11.30% per
-- 3 of 8 --
4 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
annum.
4. The suit summons was duly served on the defendants by
R.P.A.D. But the defendants failed to appear before the Court. Hence, in
view of order dated 03.02.2021, the suit is proceeded exparte against
the defendants.
5. In support of the claim, the plaintiff bank examined its
authorized representative and branch Manager namely Mr. Manish
Singh Thakur at Exh.5. The plaintiff also filed the documents alongwith
list Exh.6. The evidence closure pursis of the plaintiff is at Exh.8.
6. After considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and evidence
on record, following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded my finding against each of them with the reasons to follows:
POINTS FINDING
1) Whether plaintiff proves that an
amount of Rs.4,93,967.32ps. is due
from the defendants?
In the affirmative.
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to
recover an amount of
Rs.4,93,967.32ps. from the
defendants? If yes, at what rate of
interest ?
In the affirmative.
At the rate of Rs.12% per annum.
3) What order and decree? Suit is decreed with costs.
-- 4 of 8 --
5 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
R E A S O N S
7. Heard Learned Advocate Ms. Karuna Adangale for the
plaintiff.
8. As per the submission of the plaintiff, the loan was
obtained by the defendant on 27.01.2017. The loan account has been
treated as Non Performing Asset. Suit was filed on 04.06.2019. If the
said period is calculated, it is found that the suit is filed within three
years from the date of transaction. Hence, the suit is within limitation.
As to point nos. 1 & 2
9. Both these points are interconnected with each other.
Hence, for avoiding repetition of evidence, I discuss both these points
simultaneously. According to the plaintiff, on the request of the
defendants, the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.8,00,000/ to the
defendants for purchasing vehicle. The defendants executed various
documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and thereby agreed to repay
the loan amount with interest. However, the defendants failed to repay
the loan amount. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, an amount of
Rs.4,93,967.32ps. is outstanding from the defendants. In support of the
pleading, the plaintiff bank examined its branch Manager namely
Mr. Manish Singh Thakur at Exh.5. He deposed in support of the suit
claim. The oral evidence of the plaintiff bank manager is in consonance
with the averment made in the plaint. The aforesaid oral evidence of
the plaintiff is not challenged by the defendants. The defendants failed
to conduct the cross examination of the plaintiff. Therefore, the
evidence of the plaintiff cannot be disbelieved.
-- 5 of 8 --
6 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
10. The oral evidence of the plaintiff is supported by
documentary evidence alongwith list Exh.6. Letter of Sanction at
Exh.6/1 shows that the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of
Rs.8,00,000/ to the defendants with rate of interest of 11.30% per
annum. Accordingly, the defendants have executed Hypothecation
Agreement, Demand Promissory Note and General Lien and Set Off in
favour of the plaintiff bank. All these documents along with oral
evidence of P.W.1 proved that the defendants obtained loan of
Rs.8,00,000/ from the plaintiff bank along with interest at the rate of
11.30% per annum. The statement of account at Exh.6/6 shows that in
October, 2018, an amount of Rs.4,70,653.84ps. is due and payable from
the defendants. The particulars of the claim is also filed. The defendants
have failed to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
11. The oral and documentary evidence tendered by the
plaintiff was not challenged by the defendants. Therefore, I have no
reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff. In short, the plaintiff by
leading oral and documentary evidence sufficiently established that the
amount of Rs.4,93,967.32ps. is outstanding from the defendants.
Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the
defendants.
12. So far as interest rate is concerned, the plaintiffs have
claimed interest at the rate of 11.30% per annum. Interest at the rate of
12% per annum would be just and proper considering commercial
nature of transaction. Costs of the suit is liable to be imposed on the
defendants. In the light of above discussion, I record my finding as to
points nos. 1 in the affirmative and point no. 2 accordingly. Hence, I
-- 6 of 8 --
7 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
pass the following order:
ORDER
1) Commercial Suit No. 70 of 2019 is decreed with costs.
2) The defendants do pay an amount of Rs.4,93,967.32
(Rs. Four lakhs ninety three Thousand Nine hundred
sixty seven and thirty two paise only) to the plaintiff
along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit till realization within 3
months from the date of this decree.
3) Defendants shall bear the costs of the suit.
4) Court fee, if any, be refunded as per rule.
5) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment pronounced in the open Court)
Dated : 25.08.2022 (A.S. Salgar)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 25.08.2022
Typed on : 26.08.2022
-- 7 of 8 --
8 Judgment in Commercial Suit No. 70/2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
29.08.2022 10.55 a.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. A.S. Salgar
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
25.08.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 26.08.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 29.08.2022
-- 8 of 8 --