Order 2

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: CS No. 246 /2021
Canara Bank– Fariddin
Judgment 1 of 6
MHCC010069902018 Lodged on : 12.06.2018
Admitted on : 14.06.2018
Decided on : 12.06.2026
Duration : 08 Y : 00 M : 00 D
Exhibit : 21
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.246 OF 2021
Canara Bank
A bank constituted, established and functioning under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at 112,
J. C. Road, Bangalore, 560002 Karnataka State and
amongst other, having branch office at G-01, Rajan
House, A. S. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400
025. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Fariddin Chand Patel
Age 29 years, Occupation : Business,
The proprietor of M/s. Patel Tours & Travels,
Having office at Room No. 21, Amir Baug, Noorani
Chawl, P. Y. Thorat Marg, Near Noorani Masjid,
Chembur, Mumbai 400 089 also having address at Zo-
I-148, Varsha Adarsha Nagar Zopadpatti Part No. 2,
Near Kurla Railway Station East, S. G. Barbe Marg,
North Nehru Nagar, Kurla East, Mumbai 400 024. Defendant
Appearance :
Adv. Mahesh Chandanshiv : For Plaintiff.
Ex-parte : Defendant
CORAM : N. B. LAVTE, (C.R.No.31)
DATE : 12.06.2026
***************************************************************
-- 1 of 6 --
CS No. 246 /2021
Canara Bank– Fariddin
Judgment 2 of 6
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 12th day of June, 2026)
This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.6,54,375.80 with 18% p.a.
with monthly interest.
In short, it is the case of plaintiff bank that:
2. It is a Nationalized Bank, a body corporate constituted,
established and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The defendant is proprietor of
M/s. Patel Tours and Travels. The defendant vide loan application
Dt.13.12.2014 approached plaintiff bank for availing loan by way of
vehicle loan of Rs.5,75,000/- for purchase of Maruti Suzuki Swift Dezire
car. On 16.12.2014, plaintiff bank after complying all terms and
conditions sanctioned loan against the hypothecation and charge upon
the said vehicle. Loan was to be repaid in 60 installments with interest
11.05% with EMI of Rs.12,869/- each.
3. It is their further case that the last installment is due and
payable on or before 31.12.2019. The plaintiff bank sanctioned said
loan on the condition that, the defendant has to execute Composite
Hypothecation Agreement Dt. 16.12.2014 in favour of plaintiff thereby
hypothecating the vehicle. On the request of defendant, said loan was
remitted to the account of Sah & Sanghi Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Accordingly, all necessary documents were executed between the
parties. After execution of all loan documents, the defendant executed
Confirmation of Delivery of vehicle Dt. 16.12.2014. The dealer i.e. Sah
& Sangh Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd. issued Proforma Invoice Dt.
21.11.2014 in favour of defendant.
-- 2 of 6 --
CS No. 246 /2021
Canara Bank– Fariddin
Judgment 3 of 6
4. It is their further case that after availing said loan, defendant
purchased Maruti Suzuki Swift Dezire Tour Car having registration
No.MH-03-BC-2103. However, he failed to repay the loan, as agreed.
Therefore loan account became NPA on 30.05.2016. They sent legal
notice on 04.05.2017 and letter Dt. 29.07.2017 u/sec. 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act calling upon defendant to pay the outstanding amount
due under said loan, which he failed. They issued Seizure Notice
Dt.31.08.2017 by hand delivery which was acknowledged by defendant.
The defendant issued surrender letter and the car was seized and put to
auction on 02.06.2018. However, no successful bidder approached for
the said vehicle. Hence, plaintiff bank is entitled to recover
Rs.6,54,375.80 with interest from defendant. Hence, suit.
5. The defendant was duly served by way of substitute service by
paper publication. As he failed to appear, by order Dt. 26.04.2024, suit
was directed to proceed ex-parte.
6. From the pleadings of plaintiff, following points arise for my
consideration and determination, to which I have given my findings
alongwith reasons as under:
Sr. Points Findings
1. Is plaintiff bank entitled for recovery of an amount of
Rs.6,54,375.80 with 18% p.m from defendant?
Partly
Affirmative.
2. What order and decree? As per final
order.
REASONS
7. In order to substantiate its claim, the plaintiff bank examined
its authorized representative Mr. Mukesh Kumar and his evidence
-- 3 of 6 --
CS No. 246 /2021
Canara Bank– Fariddin
Judgment 4 of 6
affidavit is at Exh.8. They also placed reliance on the following
documents namely, verified copy of Power of Attorney (Exh.12),
Original Loan Application (Exh.13), Original Sanction Letter
Dt.16.12.2014 (Exh.14), Original Composite Hypothecation Agreement
Dt.16.12.2014 (Exh.15) Original Confirmation of Delivery of Vehilce
Dt.16.12.2014 with copy of invoice letter Dt.17.12.2014 (Exh.16 colly),
Photocopy of Registration Certificate (Article A), Office copy of letter
Dt.31.08.2017, 12.09.2017, 25.10.2018, 29.07.2017 (Exh.17 colly),
Copy of letter Dt.29.08.2018 and 17.09.2018 (Exh.18 colly), Legal
Notice Dt.04.05.2017 with postal receipts and acknowledgment card
(Exh.19), Statement of Account with Certificate u/sec. 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act (Exh.20).
AS TO POINT NO.1.
8. Heard Adv. Mahesh Chandanshiv for plaintiff and gone
through the documents filed on record. From the pleadings and record,
it goes to show that, defendant approached the plaintiff bank with a
proposal of loan for purchasing car. He filed loan application (Exh.13).
The loan was sanctioned vide Sanction Letter (Exh.14). Towards
security of repayment of loan amount, defendant executed Composite
Hypothecation (Exh.15). Thus, the documents and the unchallenged
evidence of the branch manager go to show that loan was advanced
towards which the above documents were executed by defendant.
9. The defendant failed to pay the instalments as agreed which
can be seen from the statement of account (Exh.20). The outstanding
amount is Rs.6,54,375.80. In order to prove the same, as discussed
above, the Bank Manager of plaintiff’s bank Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh
filed his evidence affidavit (Exh.08) and reiterated the contents of the
-- 4 of 6 --
CS No. 246 /2021
Canara Bank– Fariddin
Judgment 5 of 6
plaint in verbatim. As the matter proceeded ex-parte, his evidence
affidavit and the documents have gone unchallenged. By filing
documents disbursement of loan and failure on the part of defendant to
pay the EMI’s is proved. Thus, I am of the view that plaintiff Bank is
entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,54,375.80. The plaintiff bank
claimed interest of 18% per month which I am of the view that is
exorbitant. Hence, interest @ 18% p.a would be reasonable rate of
interest. Hence, the point No.1 is answered partly in affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.2:
10. In view of my finding to point No.1, the plaintiff bank is
entitled of recovery of an amount of Rs.6,54,375.80 with 18% p.a from
defendant. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. The Commercial Suit No.246 of 2021 is partly decreed with
costs.
2. The defendant is directed to pay to plaintiff bank an amount
of Rs.6,54,375.80 (Rounded as Rs.6,54,376/-) (Rs.Six Lakhs
Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Six Only)
with 18% p.a from date of suit till its realization.
3. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. The Court fees be refunded as per rules.
5. The R & P be sent to Record Department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.31)
Dt.: 12.06.2026 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
-- 5 of 6 --
CS No. 246 /2021
Canara Bank– Fariddin
Judgment 6 of 6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
12.06.2026 5.10 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. N. B. Lavte
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
12.06.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 12.06.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 12.06.2026
-- 6 of 6 --