Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010062402018 Presented on : 05-05-2018
Registered on : 28-08-2019
Decided on : 20-01-2022
Duration : Y M D
03 07 15
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.358 OF 2021
(SUMMARY SUIT NO.851 OF 2019)
Ex.13
Bank of Maharashtra,
A Banking corporation constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertaking) Act V of 1970
having its Head Office at Lokmangal,1501,
Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 and
a Branch office, amongst others,
at Vikas Apartment, Chamarbaugwala Lane,
Parel East, Mumbai400 012 ..Plaintiff
Versus
Ganesh Bandu Hire,
Age not known,
305, Kailash Parbat Chs. Ltd.,
C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz East,
Mumbai400 098 ..Defendant
_________________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate Sachin Joshi for plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte._______________________________________
-- 1 of 5 --
2
JUDGMENT
( 20th day of January, 2022)
Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,49,732/
along with interest @ 9.6% p.a.
Briefly stated, plaintiff's case, is as under:
2. Plaintiff is a body corporate and carries on business
of banking. Defendant is carrying on business. On 20/10/2016,
defendant filed application for term loan facility. Plaintiff bank
sanctioned term loan facility to the extent of Rs.10 lacs to
defendant. Defendant also executed documents such as Demand
Promissory Note for Rs.10 lacs and Composite Deed of
Hypothecation dated 20/10/2016. After receipt of the loan
amount, defendant duly executed receipt regarding receipt of
loan amount. Defendant was not regular in repaying the loan
amount. He paid Rs. 31,695/ towards loan amount and an
amount of Rs.10,49,732/ was outstanding against defendant.
Plaintiff send notice through advocate on 27/11/2017. Said
notice was duly served upon defendant. Inspite of service of
notice, defendant failed to pay the loan amount. Hence this suit.
3. As per Service Affidavit Ex.5, defendant was duly
served with Writ of Summons, but, he failed to tender his
appearance. Therefore, suit proceeded exparte against defendant
by order dated 27/02/2020.
4. Heard Ld. advocate for plaintiff.
5. Following points arise for determination, findings
thereon for the reasons to follow are as under:
-- 2 of 5 --
3
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Does the plaintiff prove that an
amount of Rs.9,68,305/ is
outstanding against the
defendant?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is partly decreed as
per final order.
REASONS
Point No.1
6. In order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff bank has
filed claim affidavit of PW1 Jeevan Budhawale (Ex.6). Plaintiff
bank also filed on record original documents alongwith list (Ex.7)
such as loan application (Ex.8), Demand Promissory Note (Ex.9)
and Composite Deed of hypothecation (Ex.10). PW1 Jeevan
Budhawale reiterated all the facts pleaded in the plaint. The
documents on record show that plaintiff bank sanctioned term
loan facility to the extent of Rs.10 lacs to defendant.
7. Plaintiff bank has filed Statement of Accounts
(Ex.11) and submitted that an amount of Rs.9,68,305/ is
recoverable against defendant. As per statement of Account
(Ex.11), an amount of Rs.9,68,305/ was outstanding against
defendant on the date of filing suit.
8. As discussed supra, defendant 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. 9,68,305/ is outstanding against the
-- 3 of 5 --
4
defendant. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get decree for the
said amount alongwith interest as prayed for.
9. Plaintiff bank claimed interest at the rate of 9.6% p.a.
The interest claimed by plaintiff is the interest agreed by
defendant. Therefore, plaintiff bank is also entitled to interest at
the rate of 9.6% p.a. from the date of filing suit till it's realisation.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly. In the result, following
order:
ORDER
1. Suit is partly decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.9,68,305/ (Rs.
Nine Lacs, Sixty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and
Five only)alongwith interest at the rate of 9.6% 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.
20/01/2022 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 20/01/2022
Transcribed on : 20/01/2022
Signed on : 20/01/2022
-- 4 of 5 --
5
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
20/01/22 at 03.20 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order 20/01/22
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 20/01/22
Judgment/order uploaded on 20/01/22
-- 5 of 5 --