Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Presented on 13.06.2018
Registered on 24.08.2018
Decided on 10.04.2019
Duration Yrs. M. Days
07 17
CNR No.
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUIT NO.2225 OF 2018
CANARA BANK, a Banking Company,
constituted and functioning under the
provisions of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings
Act,1970, having their Central Office at
Bangaluru, Pin 560 002, an Karnataka State
and a Branch Office at All saints Home
Building 54A Dockyard Road, Mazagaon,
Mumbai400010.
The suit is filed by Mr.Nishant Sinha, Age
25 years, Probationary Office, and Power of
Attorney Holder. ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
MR.SANJAY DAGADU SHINDE,
PROP OF M/S. MANASVI TRAVELS, 203/B,
Atmaram Niwas, 2nd floor, Govind Nagar,
Phulpada Road, Gandhi Chowk, TalVasai,
Virar (East), Dist. Thane401305. ...Defendant.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Ms.Amria Vora for plaintiff.
None for defendant. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendant
MHCC01-007081-2018
-- 1 of 6 --
.. j/2 .. Suit No.2225/2018
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 10th April,2019
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.7,97,341/88 paise.
2. In short, plaintiff came with a case that, plaintiff is a body
corporate constituted and functioning under the provisions of Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 and
having its head office at Benglurue and branch office at the address
mentioned in the title clause.
3. Plaintiff submitted that, defendant on or around 23.06.2015
requested plaintiff for the vehicle loan of Rs.9,09,000/. Plaintiff
sanctioned the said loan on 25.06.2015 and disbursed it on 30.06.2015.
At the time of sanctioning loan, defendant executed documents in
favour of plaintiff bank like Letter of Undertaking dt.25.06.2015, Deed
of Hypothecation Revehicle dt.25.06.2015 and defendant has
hypothecated the vehicle and executed Hypothecation Agreement in
favour of plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff further submitted that, defendant was irregular in
repayment of loan and in spite of repeated demands made by plaintiff,
defendant failed to regularized the account. Therefore, plaintiff issued
notice through Advocate on 23.05..2018 and called upon defendant to
pay the outstanding amount to plaintiff. However, defendant failed to
-- 2 of 6 --
.. j/3 .. Suit No.2225/2018
comply the demand notice. Due to noncompliance of terms and
conditions of agreement, plaintiff bank seized the vehicle and sold the
same for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/, but still defendant due and
payable Rs.7,97,341/88 on 31.05.2018 with further interest. In spite
of request defendant did not make the payment of outstanding amount.
Therefore, plaintiff bank has no other way but to file this suit for
realization of outstanding amount. Hence, this suit.
5. Writ of summons came to be issued against defendant. Plaintiff
bank filed service affidavit at Exh.2. In spite of service defendant did
not care to appear before the Court. Hence, suit proceeded exparte
against defendant.
6. In order to prove its claim, plaintiff bank filed chiefinaffidavit of
Nishant Sinha and examined his as PW1 at Exh.3 and filed list of
documents at Exh.4. Plaintiff bank proved following documents :
Ex. Sr.No. Particular
6 2 Application form dt.25/06/2015.
7 3 Loan application and interview cum appraisal form for
Transport operators dt.25/06/2015.
8 4 Letter fo deft addressing to the applicant for requesting
for the loan dt.25/06/2015.
9 5 Sanction letter dt25/06/2015.
10 6 Letter of undertaking Re loan/Advance dt.25/06/2015.
11 7 Deed of Hypothecation ReVehicle dt.25/06/2015.
12 8 Plff advocate notice and postal receipt and
acknowledgement card of the deft.
13 9 RC copy and invoice dt.19/06/2015.
14 10 Statement of account.
15 11 IT Certificate
-- 3 of 6 --
.. j/4 .. Suit No.2225/2018
Learned Advocate for Plaintiff bank filed pursis at Exh.16 and
closed their evidence side.
7. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff bank. Perused the record
and submissions.
8. On perusal of application Form and necessary documents like
Hypothecation agreement and undertaking etc., it is clear that
defendant had applied for vehicle loan and after verifying the necessary
things plaintiff bank sanctioned vehicle loan of Rs.9,09,000/ to
defendant. Defendant has also hypothecated the said vehicle. However,
defendant did not adhere with terms and conditions of agreement and
defaulted to make payment to bank. Therefore, accordingly plaintiff
bank seized the vehicle and sold it to satisfy their claim. But as per
statement of account maintained by plaintiff bank, defendant has still
an outstanding amount pay to plaintiff bank. Thereafter also, in spite
of repeated requests and reminders defendant did not pay the balance
outstanding amount. Therefore, plaintiff bank filed this suit against
defendant.
9. In spite of service of writ of summons defendant did not take care
to appear and rebut the claim of plaintiff. Therefore, testimony of
plaintiffs' witness remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Even
documents also remain uncontroverted. There is nothing brought on
record to disbelieve the version of plaintiff to hold that the amount is
not disbursed and paid to the defendant and its repayment with interest
is complied with by defendant as per agreed terms and condition.
Hence, in such circumstances, claim of plaintiff has to be admitted.
-- 4 of 6 --
.. j/5 .. Suit No.2225/2018
10. Defendant in spite of demand notice has not paid the loan
amount, which forced the plaintiff bank to approach this Court and
filed this suit for recovery of outstanding loan amount. Hence,
defendant has to pay outstanding amount with agreed rate of interest to
plaintiff bank and also costs of this suit needs to be saddled upon the
defendant. In such circumstances, suit deserves to be decreed with
costs with interest and hence, I pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant do pay Rs.7,97,341.88 along with interest
@ 09.07 percent per annum to the plaintiff bank from
the date of filing of this suit till realization of entire
decreetal amount.
3. Defendant do bear his own costs with costs of plaintiff.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 10/04/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 10.04.2019
Transcribed on : 10.04.2019
Signed on : 10.04.2019
-- 5 of 6 --
.. j/6 .. Suit No.2225/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
10.04.2019 at 05.20 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 10.04.2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 10.04.2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 10.04.2019
-- 6 of 6 --