Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010076562018 Presented on : 27-06-2018
Registered on : 22-07-2018
Decided on : 01-07-2022
Duration : Y M D
04 00 03
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.923 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.1841 OF 2018)
Ex.15
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, a body
Corporate, constituted and established
Under the provisions of the banking
Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings)Act, 1970, and having its
Head Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi110607 and also
among other branches
having one of its Branch office at
Kurla(w), Mumbai400 070. ..Plaintiff
VERSUS
Arya Tours and Travels,
Prop: Adesh Devare,
Navjeevan Rahivashi Sangh R. No. 77,
4/5. S. Barve marg, Opp. Kamgar Nager,
Kurla (E), Mumbai 400024. ..Defendant
_______________________________________________________
Ld. Advocate John Daniel for plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte._______________________________________
-- 1 of 6 --
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 1st day of July, 2022)
Suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,92,152/
along with future interest.
Plaintiff's case may be summarized as under:
2. Plaintiff is a bank, constituted and established under
the provisions of the Banking companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. On 19/01/2016, defendant
approached plaintiff bank for a Term Loan Facility of Rs.5.35 lacs
for purchasing a motor cab. On 31/03/2016, plaintiff bank
sanctioned term loan facility of Rs.5.35 lacs to defendant.
Defendant was required to pay Rs.11525.70/ in 60 monthly
installments commencing from 31/03/2016. Defendant executed
hypothecation agreement. However, defendant failed to make
regular repayment of the loan amount. An amount of
Rs.5,92,152/ was outstanding against defendant as on
24/06/2018. Plaintiff bank by sending notice, through advocate,
on 28/03/2018 asked defendant to pay the outstanding amount.
However, defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount. Hence,
this suit.
3. As per Service Affidavit Ex.5, defendant is duly
served with Writ of Summons, but, he failed to tender his
appearance. Therefore, suit proceeded exparte against defendant
by order dated 27/10/2021.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
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.5,92,152/ 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 has
filed claim affidavit of PW1 Madhav Balkrishna Vartak at Ex.6.
Plaintiff bank also relied upon following documents alongwith list
Ex.7:
Ex.8 Loan application dated 19/01/2016
Ex.9 Sanction letter
Ex.10 Hypothecation agreement dated 22/01/2016
Ex.11 Demand Notice dated 17/03/2018 alongwith
postal acknowledgment.
Ex.12 Statement of Accounts
Plaintiff filed evidence closing pursis at Ex.13.
7. PW1 Madhav deposed that defendant applied for
-- 3 of 6 --
4
term loan facility of Rs.5.35 lacs. Plaintiff bank sanctioned term
loan facility of Rs.5.35 lacs. Defendant executed hypothecation
agreement dated 22/01/2016. Defendant failed to make regular
repayment of loan amount. Evidence of PW1 Madhav is well
supported by loan application (Ex.8) and hypothecation
agreement (Ex.10). As stated above, evidence adduced by
plaintiff remain unchallenged. Statement of Account(Ex.12)
shows that an amount of Rs.5,92,152/ was outstanding against
defendant till the date of filing of suit. Thus, plaintiff bank has
succeeded to prove that an amount of Rs.5,92,152/ is
outstanding against defendant. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
8. Ld. counsel for plaintiff during the course of
arguments submitted that plaintiff bank is only interested in
claiming prayer clause (a) in the plaint. Considering the
submissions advanced on behalf of advocate appearing for
plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for an amount of
Rs.5,92,152/ against defendant.
9. Plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 11% p.a. from
the date of filing of suit till it's realization. Considering the
contents in sanction letter (Ex.9) and the nature of transaction,
plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate of 11% p.a. from the
date of filing of suit till it's realization. In the result, following
order:
-- 4 of 6 --
5
ORDER
1.Commercial Suit is partly decreed with costs.
2.Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.5,92,152/ (Rupees Five
Lacs Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two Only)
alongwith interest @ 11 % 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.
01/07/2022 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 01/07/2022
Transcribed on : 01/07/2022
Signed on : 01/07/2022
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
02/07/22 at 12.50 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order 01/07/2022
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 01/07/2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 02/07/2022
-- 6 of 6 --