Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010075682018 Presented on : 25-06-2018
Registered on : 02-03-2019
Decided on : 15-12-2021
Duration : Y M D
03 06 10
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.990 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.603 OF 2019)
Ex.25
CANARA BANK, a body corporate
Constituted under the Banking Companies
[Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings]
Act, 1970, having its Head office at 112,
J.C.Road, Bangalore560 002, and one of
its Branch Office amongst others known as
Mazgaon Branch having address at
All Saints Home Building, 54 A,
Dockyard Road, Ekta Nagar, Mazgaon,
Mumbai400010, in the State of Maharashtra,
represented by Mr. Nishant Sinha
Age: 25 Years, Officer. ..Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s.Mama Bhache Tours and Travels
(Proprietor Mr. Amol Uttam Jadhav)
Mohite Patil Vidyalaya, Mohite Patil
Nagar, CWard, Chawl No.10,
V.J.B.Marg, Mankhurd,
Mumbai400 043.
2. Mr.Amol Uttam Jadhav
Age: Adult, (Proprietor of M/s.Mama
Bhache Tours and Travels)
-- 1 of 6 --
2
Mohite Patil Vidyalaya, Mohite Patil
Nagar, CWard, Chawl No.10,
V.J.B.Marg, Mankhurd,
Mumbai400 043. ..Defendants
_________________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate Saraswati Purohit with Ld. advocate Shraddha
Agarwal for plaintiff.
Defendants Exparte._______________________________________
JUDGMENT
(Dated this 15th day of December, 2021)
1. Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,18,684/
with interest @ 11.70% p.a.
Briefly stated, plaintiff's case, is as under:
2. Plaintiff is a banking institution. Defendant No.1 is
the proprietorship firm and defendant No.2 is the proprietor of
defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 approached plaintiff bank for
term loan of Rs.7,26,000/ by making an application under Loan
to Micro & Small Enterprises. Defendants made application for
advancement of loan on 20/08/2015. The plaintiff bank
sanctioned loan of Rs.7,26,000/ to the defendants for purchase
of Chevrolet Car. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly
installments. Defendants also executed necessary documents such
as Letter of Undertaking and Hypothecation of vehicle. However,
defendants failed to make regular repayment of monthly
installments. Therefore, plaintiff bank sent notice dated
12/06/2018 through advocate calling upon the defendants to pay
the outstanding amount. Inspite of service of notice, defendants
failed to make the payment. Hence, this suit.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
3. Suit summons were served to defendants as per
service affidavit(Ex.7 & Ex.10). But, defendants failed to tender
their appearance before the Court, therefore, suit proceeded
exparte against defendants.
4. 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.7,18,684/ is
outstanding against the
defendants?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is partly decreed as
per final order.
REASONS
Point No.1
5. In order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff bank filed
evidence affidavit of it's officer PW1 Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh
(Exh.12). He testified that loan amount of Rs.7,26,000/ lacs was
disbursed to the defendants. Defendants executed documents
such as letter of undertaking (Ex.17), letter evidencing execution
of documents(Ex.18) and Hypothecation deed(Ex.20). Defendants
failed to repay the amount.
6. The oral evidence adduced by plaintiff bank is well
supported by the documents filed on record. The documents show
that loan amount of Rs.7,26,000/ was disbursed to the
defendants. Defendants were required to repay the loan amount
in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 15,497/. But, the statement of
-- 3 of 6 --
4
account (Ex.22) shows that defendants failed to make regular
repayment of the loan amount and an amount of Rs.7,18,684/
was due as on 05/06/2018.
7. As discussed supra, the defendants failed to contest
the suit and therefore the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank
remain unchallenged. From the plaintiff's evidence, it is proved
that an amount of Rs. 7,18,684/ is outstanding against the
defendants. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get decree for the
said amount. Plaintiff bank claimed interest at the rate of 9.70%
p.a. plus 2% p.a. overdue interest. The loan application letter
(Ex.15) alongwith sanction order shows the agreed rate of
interest as 10.55% (floating) p.a. Plaintiff is entitled to get 2%
penal interest as per the terms of the agreement as defendants
failed to repay the amount. Plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of
9.70% p.a. as per base rate. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to the
interest at the rate of 11.70% p.a. from the date of filing of the
suit till it's realization. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. In
the result, following order:
ORDER
1. Suit is partly decreed with costs.
2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs. 7,18,684/
(Rs. Seven Lacs, Eighteen Thousand, Six Hundred and
Eighty Four only)alongwith interest @ 11.70 percent
p.a. to plaintiff from the date of the suit till it's
realization within two months.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
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.
15/12/2021 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 15/12/2021
Transcribed on : 15/12/2021
Signed on : 15/12/2021
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
15/12/21 at 05.30 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
15/12/21
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 15/12/21
Judgment/order uploaded on 15/12/21
-- 6 of 6 --