Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010073242018 Presented on : 19/06/2018
Registered on : 13/08/2018
Decided on : 21/07/2022
Duration : Y M D
04 01 02
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.930 OF 2021
S.C. SUIT NO.2101 OF 2018
Ex.15
Bank of India, A Body Corporate
constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 having their Head Office at Star
House, C5, GBlock, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai51, and one of their
branches amongst others at Lalbaugh,
Indraprasta CHSL., Ground Floor,
Opp. Jai Hind Cenema, Dr.Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Road, Lalbaugh(East),
Mumbai400 012. ..Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Clyde Monteiro, Prop. M/s. Divine
Solutions, 704, Gaurav Galaxy, Phase I,
Opp. Nityanand Nagar, Mir Road (E),
Dist.Thane401107 ..Defendant
Ld. Advocate Pranali Mahajan for plaintiff.
DefendantExparte.
-- 1 of 6 --
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 21st day of July 2022)
Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,15,582.89/
along with future interest.
Relevant facts in the plaint may be summarized as
under:
2. Plaintiff is a banking institution constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act
1970. On 15/06/2015, plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.4.56
lacs to defendant for purchasing Tata Indica EV2 LX CR4.
Defendant executed documents such as demand promissory note,
hypothecationcumloan agreement and multi purpose document
in Form L516. Defendant agreed to pay loan amount in 60
monthly installments of Rs.10,010/ commencing from
30/08/2015. However, defendant failed to repay the amount.
Therefore, defendant's account was classified as 'NPA' with effect
from 30/06/2017. Plaintiff by issuing letter dated 16/09/2017,
through advocate, called upon defendant to pay outstanding
amount. Inspite of service of notice, defendant failed to make the
payment. Hence, this suit.
3. Defendant was deemed to be served with writ of
summons(Ex.4). But, inspite of service of summons, defendant
failed to tender his appearance. Therefore, suit proceeded
-- 2 of 6 --
3
exparte as per order dated 19/03/2022.
4. Heard Ld. advocate for plaintiff.
5. 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.4,15,582.89/ is
outstanding against 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 filed
evidence affidavit of its officer PW1 Ashuthosh Kumar (Ex.5).
Plaintiff relied upon following documents :
Ex.7 Sanction letter
Ex.8 Demand Promissory Note
Ex.9 Hypothecation agreement
Ex.10 Multipurpose agreement
Ex.11 Copy of legal notice
Ex.12 Particulars of claim
Ex.13 Statement of account
Plaintiff has filed evidence closing pursis at Ex.14.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
7. PW1 Ashuthosh reiterated all the facts pleaded in
the plaint. He testifies that defendant availed term loan facility of
Rs.4,56,000/. However, defendant failed to pay the outstanding
amount. Oral evidence of PW1 Ashuthosh gets requisite support
from the documents filed on record. As per sanction letter
(Ex.7), plaintiff bank sanctioned term loan facility of
Rs.4,56,000/. Defendant executed hypothecation agreement
(Ex.9). The Statement of Account filed on record (Ex.13), shows
that defendant failed to repay the loan amount. As discussed
supra, plaintiff's claim remain unchallenged and uncontroverted.
From the evidence of PW1 Ashuthosh and documents filed on
record, plaintiff has proved that an amount of Rs. 4,15,582.89/ is
outstanding against defendant. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
8. Plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 11.20% p.a.
from the date of suit till its realization. Plaintiff's claim for
interest is based upon sanction letter Ex.6. It is an agreed rate of
interest. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate
of 11.20% p.a. In the result, following order:
ORDER
1.Commercial Suit No.930 of 2021 is partly decreed with
costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.4,15,582.69/
(Rupees Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty
Two and Sixty Nine Paise Only)along with interest @ 11.20
-- 4 of 6 --
5
percent 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. Decree thus follow.
21/07/2022 SUNIL U. HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 21/07/2022
Transcribed on : 22/07/2022
Signed on : 22/07/2022
-- 5 of 6 --
6
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
22.07.2022 5.45 pm Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri S.U.HAKE
(CR No.14)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
21.07.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 22.07.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 22.07.2022
-- 6 of 6 --