Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
Lodged on : 25/06/2018
Registered on :12/10/2018
Decided on: 5/03/2020
Duration : 01:Y / 04:M / 25:D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 259 OF 2020
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.2740 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC01- 007594-2018)
Canara bank )
a Banking Company incorproated under the )
Banking companies(Acquisition & Transfer )
of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having their Head )
Office at Bangalore-569 992 and Branch )
Office at All Saints Home Building, 54 A )
Dockyard Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 0010 )
Through Officer Mr.Nishant Sinha )
Age: Not known. )...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Sarang Travels )
Through Prop.Mr.Tabrez Karim Sarang )
Age: Not known )
Having Address at, 12th Floor, Grpund 1N Pathna )
Chawl, Mahapurush Mandir Marg, Gun Powder, )
Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010. )...Defendant
Appearance:-
Ld.Advocate Ms.Wasima Kazi for plaintiff.
Exparte against the defendant.
CLAIM: RECOVERY OF AMOUNT.
-- 1 of 6 --
2
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI R.V.KOKARE
DATE :05/03/2020 (C.R.No.31)
JUDGMENT
(Decided on 05/03/2020)
This is a suit filed by plaintiff bank for recovery of amount
of Rs.8,16,503.99 p.s. (Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Five
Hundred Three and Ninety Nine Paise only) with further interest @
9.95% p.a.
Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff bank are as under:
2. The defendant is Tours and Travel’s company of which Mr. Tabrez
Karim Sarangis Proprietor. The defendant approached to the plaintiff
bank and applied for vehicle loan for Toyota Etios GD 5 seater costing
Rs.9,12,827/-. The said loan application form was duly submitted in the
banks prescribed format. After considering the loan application of the
defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned credit facility for a sum of
Rs.9,50,000/- dated 29.08.2015. The defendant executed concerned
documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendant made default
in making repayments despite of request made by the plaintiff bank.
The defendants account has been classified as a NPA on 30.01.2017.
3. The defendant further called upon to pay the amount of
Rs.8,99,110/- being the amount due as on 26.09.2017. The plaintiff
bank sold the vehicle which was hypothecated against the loan and
accordingly sum of Rs.2,45,000/- has been recovered from sale of the
vehicle. Amount of Rs.8,11,255/- outstanding against the defendant.
The defendant had signed loan documents on 29/08/2015. Account of
defendant turned to NPA on 30.01.2017. Legal notice is sent to the
defendant on 26.09.2017. Therefore, the present suit is filed well within
-- 2 of 6 --
3
three years of limitation. Hence, this suit of the plaintiff.
4. The suit is duly served on the defendant, but the defendant
remained absent. Therefore, ex-parte order passed against the
defendant dated 21.01.2019.
5. In view of pleadings of the plaintiff and arguments of advocate
Ms. Wasima Kazi 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.8,16,503.99/- is due against the
defendant?
Yes.
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover
amount of Rs. 8,16,503.99/- from the
defendant alongwith further interest
@9.95% p.a. ?
Yes.
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. Nishant Sinha, Officer of the
plaintiff bank by way of affidavit at Exh.-6. In support of oral evidence
of PW No.1, the plaintiff bank produced documentary evidence under
list of documents at Exh.7. 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- Nishant Sinha,
Officer 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 plaint.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
The PW No. 1 has deposed that the defendant is Tours and Travel's
Company of which Mr. Tabrez Karim Sarangis Proprietor. The defendant
approached to the plaintiff bank and applied for vehicle loan for Toyota
Etios GD 5 seater costing Rs.9,12,827/-. The said loan application form
was duly submitted in the banks prescribed format. After considering
the loan application of the defendant the plaintiff bank sanctioned
credit facility for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- dated 29.08.2015. The
defendant executed concerned documents in favour of the plaintiff
bank. The defendant made default in making repayments despite of
request made by the plaintiff bank. The defendants account has been
classified as a NPA on 30/01/2017. The defendant further called upon
to pay the amount of Rs. 8,99,110/- being the amount due as on
26.09.2017. The plaintiff bank sold the vehicle which was hypothecated
against the loan and accordingly sum of Rs.2,45,000/- has been
recovered from sale of the vehicle. Amount of Rs.8,11,255/-
outstanding against the defendant. The defendant has signed loan
documents on 29.08.2015. Account of defendant turned to NPA on
30/01/2017. Legal notice is sent to the defendant on 26.09.2017.
Therefore, the present suit is filed well within three years of limitation.
8. In support of oral evidence of the PW-1, the plaintiff bank
produced documentary evidence under list of document at Exh. 7. The
documents are - Copy of power of attorney which is at Exh.8, Original
application form for loans to MICRO & Small Enterprises (MSE’s) is at
Exh.9, Original proforma invoice is at Exh.10, Original sanction letter is
at Exh.11, Original form NF-373 is at Exh.12, Original deed of
hypothecation is at Exh.13, Original of loan application andt Interview
Cum Appraisal Form at Exh.14, Original of letter of undertaking is at
Exh.15, Original standing instruction undertaking form at Exh.16,
-- 4 of 6 --
5
Original of legal notice dated along with Proof of dispatch is at Exh. 17,
Copy of statement of accounts is at Exh.18, Copy of Bankers Books
Evidence Act is at Exh.19, The Certificate u/s. 2A of the amended
Banker’s Books Evidence Act 1891 is at Exh. 20, Copy particulars of
claim is at Exh. 21. It is pertinent to note that the oral as well as
documentary evidence of the plaintiff's 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.8,16,503.99 p.s. is due
against the defendant. The plaintiff bank has also proved that the
plaintiff bank is entitled to recover amount of Rs.8,16,503.99 p.s.
alongwith further interest @ 9.95% p.a. Therefore, I have answered on
the point nos. 1 and 2 are in affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER
1. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
2. The defendant shall pay the amount of Rs. 8,16,503.99 p.s. (Rupees
Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Three and Ninety Nine
Paise only) with further interest @ 9.95% p.a. since filing of the suit till
realization of the decreetal amount.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(R.V.Kokare)
Judge,
Date :05/03/2020. City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Directly dictated on
Computer : 05/03/2020
Signed by HHJ: 06/03/2020
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
06/03/2020 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
05/03/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 06/03/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 06/03/2020
-- 6 of 6 --