Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010075712018 Presented on : 25-06-2018
Registered on : 20-03-2019
Decided on : 23-10-2021
Duration : Y M D
03 03 28
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.1007 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.832 OF 2019)
Ex.21
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, Mazagaon, Mumbai400 010, in the
State of Maharashtra, represented by
Mr.Nishant Sinha Age: 25 Years, officer ..Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Katha Tours and Travels
(Proprietor Mr.Sunil Pandurang Phake)
33, Khimji Nagji Chawl, Senapati
Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai400 013.
2. Mr.Sunil Pandurang Phake,Age Adult
(Proprietor of M/s. Katha Tours and Travels)
33, Khimji Nagji Chawl, Senapati
Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai400 013. ..Defendants
-- 1 of 6 --
2
__________________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate Shraddha Agrawal for plaintiff.
Defendants Exparte._______________________________________
JUDGMENT
(Dated this 23rd day of October, 2021)
1. Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,46,867.15/
with interest @ 11.70% p.a.
2. Briefly stated, plaintiff's case, is as under:
Plaintiff is a banking institution constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970. Defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm. Defendant no.2 is
proprietor of defendant no.1 firm. Defendant no.2 approached
plaintiff bank for term loan of Rs.7.67 lacs by making an
application under scheme Loans to Micro & Small Enterprises.
Defendants made application for advancement of loan on
31/10/2015. The plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 7.67 lacs
to the defendants for purchase of vehicle. Defendants purchased
Toyoto Etios GD 5 Car. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly
installments of Rs.16,509/. 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 send 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.
3. Suit summons were deemed to be served to
defendants as per service affidavit(Ex.7). But, defendants failed
-- 2 of 6 --
3
to tender their appearance before the Court, therefore, suit
proceeded exparte as per order dated 08/10/2021.
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.8,46,867.15/ is
outstanding against the
defendants?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is decreed as per
final order.
REASONS
Point No.1
6. In order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff bank filed
evidence affidavit of it's officer PW1 Pramod Kumar Singh
(Exh.9) and original documents below list Ex.10. He testified that
loan amount of Rs.7.67 lacs was disbursed to the defendants.
Defendants executed documents such as letter of undertaking
(Ex.14) and Hypothecation deed(Ex.16). Defendants failed to
repay the amount.
7. The oral evidence adduced by plaintiff bank is well
supported by the documents filed on record. The documents show
that loan amount of Rs.7.67 lacs was disbursed to the defendants.
Defendants were required to repay the loan amount in 60
monthly installments. But, the statement of account (Ex.18)
shows that defendants failed to make regular repayment of the
-- 3 of 6 --
4
loan amount and an amount of Rs.8,46,867.15/ was due as on
05/06/2018.
8. 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.8,46,867.15/ 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.12) alongwith sanction order shows the agreed rate of
interest as 10.20% 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 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 decreed with costs.
2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.8,46,867.15/
(Rs. Eight Lacs, Forty Six Thousand, Eight Hundred
Sixty Seven and Fifteen Paise only)alongwith interest @
11.70 percent p.a. to plaintiff from the date of the suit
till it's 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 of 6 --
5
4. Decree thus follow.
23/10/2021 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 23/10/2021
Transcribed on : 23/10/2021
Signed on : 23/10/2021
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
23/10/21 at 05.30 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
23/10/21
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 23/10/21
Judgment/order uploaded on 23/10/21
-- 6 of 6 --