Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Comm.SU No.692019
MHCC010055702019
Presented on : 04062019
Registered on : 01082019
Decided on : 20112021
Duration : Y02, M05, D 16
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.69 OF 2019
*(Dena Bank, ]
a body corporate constituted under the Banking ]
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of ]
Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Corporate ]*(Deleted as per
Office at Dena Corporate Center, C10, GBlock, ] order dated
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 and its Branch ] 04.11.2019)
office amongst at Tardeo Branch, Everest 811A , ]
2nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai400 034 ]
Rahul Prakash Modak through its Branch Manager)...Plaintiff
Rider
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, ]
Baroda390007, (Gujarat) ]
and corporate Office at Baroda Corporate Center, ]
GBlock, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai400 051, and its Branch Office amongst ]
Tardeo Branch, Everest 811A, 2 nd Floor, Tardeo, ]
Road, Mumbai400 034 ]....Plaintiff
V/s
Smt. Jasmine Salamat Shaikh, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai residing at: A504, ]
Orchid Apartment, 5th Floor, Shuklaji Street, ]
Opp. Balwas Hotel, Mumbai Central, ]
Mumbai400 008 ]....Defendant
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Comm.SU No.692019
APPEARANCE:
Adv.Mr.Sanjay Upadhyay for the plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
CORAM : H.H. ADHOC JUDGE
SHRI. RAJESH A. SASNE
(C.R.No.32)
DATED :20th November, 2021
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for
recovery of amount advanced to the defendant by term loan.
In brief, the facts of the plaintiff's case are as under :
2. The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies Act, 1970. By Notification dated 02.01.2019 issued
by Government of India, the plaintiff bank has merged with Bank of
Baroda from 01.04.2019. On the request of the defendant, the plaintiff
by sanction letter dated 11.09.2017 advanced loan of Rs.3,95,000/ to
the defendant. For which the defendant has executed several
documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has failed and
neglected to pay the due balance of the outstanding loan alongwith
interest thereon to the plaintiff. By notice dated 19.03.2019, the
defendant was called upon to pay the outstanding amount. In spite of
the same, the defendant has failed to do so. Amount of Rs.3,13,086.69
alongwith interest at the rate of 10.15% p.a. is due and payable from
the defendant. Hence, to recover the said amount, the plaintiff has filed
this suit.
3. By my predecessor's order dated 18.12.2019, the suit is
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Comm.SU No.692019
proceeded exparte against the defendant.
4. Heard the learned Advocate for the plaintiff. No argument
of the defendant. Points for determination along with my findings
thereon with reasons are as under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it has
advanced term loan of Rs.3,95,000/ to the
defendant ?
Yes
2. Whether the defendant has failed to repay
the amount due against the loan to the
plaintiff ?
Yes
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
amount of Rs.3,13,086.69 is due and
payable from the defendant?
Yes
4. If yes, at what rate of interest ? @ 10.15% p.a.
5. What order and decree? Suit is decreed
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO.1 to 4:
5. All these points are interlinked with each other, hence they
are taken together for consideration. The plaintiff in support of its claim
has examined Manoj (PW1) at Exh.04. After merging of Dena Bank
with Bank of Baroda, the plaintiff has examined Manish(PW2) at
Exh.11. The plaintiff has relied on the following documentary evidence:
1 Sanction Letter dated 11.09.2017, at Exh.14
2 Demand Promissory Note dated 16.09.2017 for
Rs.3,95,000/, at Exh.15
3 Agreement of hypothecation dated 24.10.2016 for
Rs.6,50,000/, at Exh.16
4 General Letter of Lien and Setoff dated 24.10.2016, at
Exh.17
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Comm.SU No.692019
5 Plaintiffs Advocate's Letter dated 19.03.2019, at Exh.18
6 Statement of Accounts and Banker's Certificate at Exh.19
colly
6. The documentary evidence alongwith oral evidence of the
plaintiff shows that at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank
has advanced loan Rs.3,95,000/ to the defendant for purchase of
vehicle. The original sanction letter (Exh.14) shows that the plaintiff
bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.3,95,000/ to the defendant.
Similarly, agreement of hypothecation (Exh.16) is also executed by the
defendant. The said agreement of hypothecation bears condition that
borrower shall pay interest at the rate of 1.55% above Marginal Cost
Based Lending Rate (MCLR) [the present MCLR being 8.4% p.a.]. These
documents clearly show that the defendant has obtained loan of
Rs.3,95,000/ from the plaintiff.
7. Manish (PW2) deposes that the defendant failed and
neglected to observe the conditions of loan agreement. The defendant
was irregular in repayment of loan amount. The defendant was called
upon to pay the outstanding loan amount by legal notice dated
19.03.2019 (Exh.18). He further deposes that in spite of this, the
defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount. The statement of
accounts (Exh.19 colly) shows that the defendant has failed to pay the
due amount to the plaintiff.
8. The rate of interest as stated in the agreement of
hypothecation is 1.55% above Marginal Cost Based Lending Rate
(MCLR) [the present MCLR being 8.4% p.a.]. In the plaint, the plaintiff
has prayed for interest at the rate of 10.15% p.a. Considering the
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Comm.SU No.692019
transaction and considering the fact that the defendant has obtained
loan for purchase of vehicle, in my view, the plaintiff is entitled for the
rate of interest at the rate of 10.15% p.a.
9. As aforesaid the plaintiff proves that the defendant has
obtained loan of Rs.3,95,000/ from the plaintiff. The plaintiff also
proves that the defendant has failed to repay the balance loan amount
of Rs.3,13,086.69 which is due and payable from the defendant to the
plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the
defendant for recovery of said amount along with interest at the rate of
10.15% p.a. from the date of filing of this suit till realisation of amount.
Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4.
AS TO POINT NO.5:
10. In view of my findings to point Nos.1 to 4, the suit is liable
to be decreed with costs. In the result, in answer to point No.5, I pass
the following order.
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. The defendant do pay to the plaintiff an amount of
Rs.3,13,086.69(Rupees Three Lakh Thirteen Thousand
Eighty Six and Paise Sixty Nine Only) alongwith
interest at the rate of 10.15% per annum from the
date of filing of this suit till realisation.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Rajesh A.Sasne)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 20.11.2021 Mumbai.
Dictated on : 20.11.2021
Transcribed on : 20.11.2021
Signed by HHJ on : 20.11.2021
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Comm.SU No.692019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22.11.2021 at 5.38 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mrs. K.S.Bhosale)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI RAJESH A.SASNE
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
20.11.2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 20.11.2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 22.11.2021
-- 6 of 6 --