Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010071892018
Lodged on : 15/06/2018
Registered on : 01/08/2018
Decided on: 12/03/2020
Duration : 01:Y 07:M 12:D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.238 OF 2020
S.C. SUIT NO. 1974 OF 2018
Canara bank, a Body Corporate constituted )
Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & )
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having )
Its Head Office at 112, J.C.Road, Bangalore- )
560 002, and one the branch office amongst )
Others at Chembur Main Branch 70, Mangal )
Smruthi MDS Marg, Chembur, Mumbai- )
400071 through its Authorized Officer )
Mr.Yadvendra Kumar Ujagar, aged 36 yrs. )...Plaintiff.
Versus
Mr. Suresh Moolchand Pal, aged 34 years, )
Inhabitant, S/o. Moolchand Pal, residing at )
Room No.8, Gali No.5, 30 Foot Road, Near )
Ganesh Mandir, Mankhurd Mandala, )
Govandi, Mumbai-400043. )...Defendant.
Appearance:-
Ld.Advocate Mr. Mishra for plaintiff.
Exparte against Defendant.
-- 1 of 6 --
2
CLAIM: RECOVERY OF AMOUNT.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI R.V. KOKARE
DATE :12/03/2020(C.R.No.31)
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff bank for recovery of amount of
Rs.4,34,009.54 p.s.(Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Nine
Rupees and Fifty Four paise only) with further interest @ 13.95% p.a.
Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff bank are as under:
2. The defendant vide loan application dated 17/6/2015 requested
to the plaintiff bank for availing a term loan facility for a sum of
Rs.4,07,000/- to purchase a Tata ACE Vehicle. The defendant executed
concerned documents in favour of the plaintiff bank against the loan
amount. After considering the documents produced by the defendant,
the plaintiff bank granted the said credit facility of Rs.4,07,000/- for the
purpose of purchase of the new Tata ACE vehicle No.MH-04-GR-6668,
which is payable @ 10.30 % interest of 58 EMI of Rs.7139/- each starts
from the date of disbursement i.e. 17/6/2015. The terms and the
conditions for granting the said credit facilities were conveyed by the
plaintiff to the defendant by Sanction Memorandum dated 17/6/2015.
3. The defendant has been irregular for long time inspite of the
repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiffs. The defendants
account has been declared as NPA on 16/6/2016. The plaintiffs bank
issued notice to the defendant through its advocate bearing letter dt.
23/3/2018. The defendant failed to repay the loan amount of
Rs.4,34,009.54 which is due against him as on 21/3/2018. Hence, this
suit.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
4. The suit is duly served on the defendant but the defendant
remained absent. Therefore, ex-parte order passed against the
defendant dated 16/01/2019.
5. In view of pleadings of the plaintiff and argument of Adv. Mr.
Mishra on behalf of the plaintiff bank. Following points arose for my
consideration. I have recorded my findings against each of the points
alongwith my reasons are as follows:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Does the plaintiff bank proves amount
of Rs.4,34,009.54 is due against the
defendant?
Yes.
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover
amount of Rs. 4,34,009.54 from the
defendant alongwith further interest
@13.95% p.a. ?
Yes, alongwith further
interest @ 9% p.a.
3. What order and decree? As per final order.
REASONS
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff has
examined its witness PW No.1- Mr. Yadvendra Kumar Ujagar, Manager
of the plaintiff bank by way of affidavit at Exh-7. In support of oral
evidence of the PW No.1, the plaintiff bank produced documentary
evidence under list of document at Exh. 8. It is pertinent to note that
the oral as well as documentary evidence of the plaintiff bank has gone
unchallenged.
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :-
7. On scrutiny of the oral evidence of PW No.1- Yadvendra Kumar
Ujagar, Manager of the plaintiff bank, it appears to me that the evidence
of PW No. 1 is nothing but it is the reproduction of the contents of the
-- 3 of 6 --
4
plaint. The PW No. 1 has deposed that the defendant vide loan
application dt. 17/6/2015 requested to the plaintiff bank for availing a
term loan facility for a sum of Rs.4,07,000/- to purchase a Tata ACE
Vehicle. The defendant executed concerned documents in favour of the
plaintiff bank against the loan amount. After considering the documents
produced by the defendant, the plaintiff bank granted the said credit
facility of Rs.4,07,000/- for the purpose of purchase of the new Tata
ACE vehicle No.MH-04-GR-6668, which is payable @ 10.30% interest of
58 EMI of Rs.7139/- each starts from date of disbursement i.e.
17/6/2015. The terms and the conditions for granting the said credit
facilities were conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant by sanction
memorandum dated 17/6/2015. The defendant has been irregular for
long time inspite of the repeated request, demands made by the
plaintiffs. The defendants account has been declared as NPA on
16/6/2016. The plaintiffs bank issued notice to the defendant through
its advocate bearing letter dt. 23/3/2018. The defendant failed to repay
the loan amount of Rs.4,34,009.54 which is due against him as on
21/3/2018. Hence, this suit.
8. In support of oral evidence of the PW-1, the plaintiff bank
produced documentary evidence under list of document at Exh. 07. The
documents are at Exh.9 to 19. These documents are original authority
letter dtd.30/9/2019 at Exh.9, original loan application dtd. 17/6/2015
at Exh.10, copy of sanction memorandum dtd. 17/6/2015 at Exh.11,
original deed of hypothecation dt. 17/6/2015 at Exh.12, original letter
of undertaking dtd. 17/6/2016 at Exh.13, original confirmation letter
for creating vehicle hypothecation dtd. 17/6/2016 at Exh.14, original
certificate of loan papers obtained dtd. 17/6/2016 at Exh.15, original
office copy of advocate's letter dtd. 23/3/2018 at Exh.16, original A/D
-- 4 of 6 --
5
Card dtd.24/3/2018 is at Exh.17, original statement of account of the
defendant dtd. 17/8/2018 at Exh.18 and particulars of claim at Exh.19.
It is pertinent to note that the oral as well as documentary evidence of
the plaintiff bank has been gone unchallenged.
9. From above my discussion, I come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff bank has proved that amount of Rs.4,34,009.54 is due against
the defendant. The plaintiff bank has also proved that the plaintiff bank
is entitled to recover amount of Rs.4,34,009.54. The plaintiff bank
asked interest @ 13.95% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till
realization of entire amount. But at present, there is no interest @
13.95%p.a. of any bank. Therefore, the interest rate @ 9% p.a. is
reasonable. Hence, I have answered on the point nos. 1 is affirmative
and point no.2 is accordingly. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
2. The defendant shall pay amount of Rs.4,34,009.54 to the
plaintiff bank alongwith further interest 9% p.a. from the date
of filing of the suit till realization of entire decreetal amount.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(R.V.Kokare)
Judge,
Date : 12/03/2020. City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Directly dictated on: 12/03/2020
Signed by HHJ: 12/03/2020
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
12/03/2020 5.00p.m. Mrs. V.V.Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri R.V.Kokare(CR No.31)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
12/03/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 12/03/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 12/03/2020
-- 6 of 6 --