Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Comm. Suit – 964/21 1 Judgment
MHCC010056862018 Presented on : 25042018
Registered on : 15012019
Decided on : 11072022
Duration : Y M D
4 2 16
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.964 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.174 OF 2019)
Exh.19
CANARA BANK,
Through Chief Manager,
A body corporate constituted
under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking
Act 1970 having their Office at
Canara Bank, Nerul Branch (East),
Navi Mumbai – 400 706 ..Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/S BHUSHAN TOURS & TRAVELS
PROP : MR.BHUSHAN SAMBHAJI KAMBLE
K.N. Gaikwad Marg, Nr. Bouddh Vihar,
Waghmare Plot No. 155, Siddharth Colony,
Chembur, Mumbai : 400 071 ..Defendant
________________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate Sarita Sonawane for plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
( Delivered on this 11th day of July 2022)
Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,10,541/ along
with interest @ 11.70% p.a.
-- 1 of 6 --
Comm. Suit – 964/21 2 Judgment
Briefly stated, plaintiff's case, is as under :
2. Plaintiff is a body corporate and carries on business of
banking. On 11.12.2015, defendant approached plaintiff bank for term
loan facility of Rs.7,11,000/ for purchasing vehicle under Canara
Pragati SRTO Service. Plaintiff bank sanctioned the term loan of
Rs.7,11,000/ to defendant for purchase of Hundai Xcent Vehicle.
Defendant agreed to pay interest @ 10.20% floating per annum.
Defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 installments of EMI of
Rs.15,441/. Defen dant executed documents such as letter of
undertaking and hypothecation of vehicle. Defendant was not regular
in repaying the loan amount. On 27.03.2018, plaintiff sent notice,
through advocate, to defendant. But, defendant failed to pay the
outstanding amount. An amount of Rs.6,10,541/ is outstanding
against defendant. Hence, this suit.
3. As per service affidavit (Exh.2), defendant is duly served
with writ of summons. But, he failed to tender his appearance.
Therefore, suit proceeded exparte against defendant by order dated
20.08.2019.
4. Heard Ld. advocate for plaintiff. 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.6,10,541/ is
outstanding against the defendant ?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is decreed as per final
order.
-- 2 of 6 --
Comm. Suit – 964/21 3 Judgment
REASONS
Point No.1 :
5. In order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff bank has filed
evidence affidavit of PW1 Amit Ghugare at Exh.3. Plaintiff bank relied
upon following documents :
(a) Loan application (Exh.5 and 6).
(b) Sanction letter (Exh.7).
(c) Receipt of vehicle (Exh.8).
(d) Tax invoice (Exh.9).
(e) Debit note (Exh.10).
(f) Insurance certificate (Exh.11).
(g) Copy of shop and Establishment license (Exh.12).
(h) Letter evidencing execution of documents (Exh.13).
(i) Hypothecation agreement (Exh.14).
(j) Copies of notices to defendant (Exh.15 and 16).
(k) Copy of legal notice along with tracking report (Exh.17
collectively).
6. PW1 Amit Ghugare reiterated all the facts pleaded in the
plaint in his evidence affidavit. He testifies that defendant applied for
term loan of Rs.7,11,000/. Plaintiff bank sanctioned term loan of
Rs.7,11,000/ to defendant for purchase of Hundai Xcent vehicle.
Defendant executed documents such as letter evidencing execution of
documents (Exh.13) and hypothecation of vehicle (Exh.14). The oral
evidence of plaintiff is well supported by documents filed on record.
The documents on record show that plaintiff bank sanctioned term loan
to the extent of Rs.7,11,000/ to defendant (Exh.7). Defendant
-- 3 of 6 --
Comm. Suit – 964/21 4 Judgment
executed aforesaid documents. Thus, material on record shows that
defendant availed term loan of Rs.7,11,000/ from plaintiff bank.
Statement of account shows that an amount of Rs.6,10,541/ was
outstanding against defendant as on 14/04/2018. As discussed supra,
defendant failed to tender his appearance, therefore, plaintiff’s evidence
remains unchallenged. From all above discussion, it is held that
plaintiff has succeeded to prove that an amount of Rs.6,10,541/ is
outstanding against defendant. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
7. Plaintiff bank claimed interest @ 11.70% p.a. As per
sanction letter (Exh.7), plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 10.20%
(floating) p.a. and penal interest @ 2% p.a. in the event of default of
payment by defendant. Plaintiff claimed interest @ 11.70% (9.70% +
2% penal interest) p.a. as per base rate. Plaintiff is claiming agreed
rate of interest. Taking into consideration nature of the transaction,
plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 11.70% p.a. from the date of filing suit
till its realization. In the result, following order:
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No.964 of 2021 is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.6,10,541/ (Rupees Six Lacs
Ten Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) along with interest @
11.70% p.a. to plaintiff from the date of the suit till its 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 of 6 --
Comm. Suit – 964/21 5 Judgment
4. Decree thus follow.
( SUNIL U. HAKE )
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
Date : 11/07/2022 GR. BOMBAY.
Directly dictated on computer : 11/07/2022
Checked & Signed on : 13/07/2022
-- 5 of 6 --
Comm. Suit – 964/21 6 Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
14.07.2022 at 05.35 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(AMIT DATTATRAY SHINDE)
COURT TYPIST, COURT NO.14
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI S.U. Hake
(COURT NO.14)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
11.07.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 13.07.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 14.07.2022
-- 6 of 6 --