Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010075762018 Presented on : 25-06-2018
Registered on : 11-03-2019
Decided on : 08-10-2021
Duration : Y M D
02 06 27
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.997 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.649 OF 2019)
Ex.17
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 )
Mazagaon Branch having address at All )
Saints Home Building, 54 A, Dockyard Road)
Ekta Nagar, Mazagaon, Mumbai400 010, in)
the State of Maharashtra, presented by )
Mr.Nishant Sinha Age: 25 Years, officer ) ..Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Shaurya Tours and Travels )
(Proprietor Mr.Sangharsh Namdev )
Dhende) 10, Ground Floor, 15A )
B.D.D.Chawl, B.J.Deorukhkar Marg, )
Naigaon, Dadar(E), Mumbai400014 )
2. Mr.Sangharsh Namdev Dhende )
AgeAdult, (Proprietor of M/s. )
Shaurya Tours and Travels )
10, Ground Floor, 15A )
B.D.D.Chawl, B.J.Deorukhkar Marg, )
Naigaon, Dadar(E), Mumbai400014 ) ..Defendants
-- 1 of 6 --
2
Ld. Advocate Shraddha Agrawal for plaintiff.
Defendants Exparte._______________________________________
JUDGMENT
(Dated this 08th day of October, 2021)
1. Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,82,783/
with interest @ 11.70% p.a.
2. Briefly stated, plaintiff's case, is as under:
Plaintiff is a banking institution. 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.9.49 lacs by making an application dated 20/07/2015 under
scheme 'Loans to Micro & Small Enterprises'. The plaintiff bank
sanctioned loan of Rs. 9.49 lacs to the defendants for purchase of
vehicle. Defendants purchased Nissan Sunny XLD Car. The loan
was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.20789/ per
month. 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. Defendants appeared before the Court. But, failed to
contest the suit by filing their Written Statement, therefore, suit
proceeded without Written Statement as per order dated
25/08/2021.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
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.6,82,783/ is
outstanding against the
defendants?
Proved
2. What order? Suit is 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 Pramod Kumar Singh
(Exh.5). He reiterated all the facts pleaded in the plaint. He
testified that defendants executed documents such as letter of
undertaking (Ex.10), letter of evidencing execution of
documents(Ex.11) and Hypothecation deed(Ex.12). 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.9.49 lacs was disbursed to the defendants.
Defendants were required to repay the loan amount in 60
monthly installments. But, the statement of account (Ex.14)
shows that defendants failed to make regular repayment of the
loan amount and an amount of Rs.6,82,783/ was due as on
05/06/2018.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
7. As discussed supra, the defendants failed to contest
the suit and therefore the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank
remain unchallenged. The oral as well as documentary evidence
of plaintiff shows that an amount of Rs. 6,82,783/ is outstanding
against defendants. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get decree
for the said amount. Plaintiff bank claimed interest at the rate of
09.20% p.a. plus 2% p.a. overdue interest. The loan application
letter (Ex.08) alongwith sanction order shows the agreed rate of
interest as 10.55% 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. 6,82,783/
(Rs. Six Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and
Eighty Three 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. Decree thus follow.
08/10/2021 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
Dictated on : 08/10/2021
Transcribed on : 08/10/2021
Signed on : 08/10/2021
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
08/10/21 at 05.00 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order 08/10/21
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 08/10/21
Judgment/order uploaded on 08/10/21
-- 6 of 6 --