Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: ..1.. S.C. Suit No.59/2020
MHCC010097742019 Presented on : 23/09/2019
Registered on : 02/01/2020
Decided on : 07/10/2023
Duration : 04Y 00M 15D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
EXHIBIT NO.20
S. C. SUIT NO.59 OF 2020
CANARA BANK,
A body Corporate Constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head
Office at 112, J. C. Road, Bangalore – 560 002,
and one of its Branch Office amongst others
known as Naigaum Dadar Branch having
address at Gr. Floor, Dr. D B Kulkarni Vidyalay Lok
Seva Sangh, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Road,
Naigaum, Dadar (East), Mumbai – 400 014,
in the State of Maharashtra, represented by
Rajani S. Bordawekar, Manager.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Mr. Mahendran Chandrakant, S/o. Chandrakant
Armugam, Adult, Occupation – Taxi Driver,
Room No.215, Indira Chawl, Indira Nagar,
Dharavi Cross Road, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017.
]
]
]
] ..DEFENDANT
Appearance :-
Learned Adv. Manisha Vishwakarma for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
(Ex-parte)
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHAIKH AKBAR SHAIKH JAFAR
COURT ROOM NO.15.
DATE : 07/10/2023
J U D G M E N T
1 Instant suit is filed for recovery of amount. The plaintiff
bank has come with the case that plaintiff bank is a corporate body
constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
-- 1 of 6 --
..2.. S.C. Suit No.59/2020
Undertakings) Act, 1970, and having its Head Office at 112, J. C. Road,
Bangalore – 560 002, and one of its Branch Office known as Canara
Bank, Naigaum Dadar Branch having address at Ground floor, Dr. D B
Kulkarni Vidyalay, Lok Seva Sangh, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Road,
Naigaum, Dadar (East), Mumbai – 400 014. The plaintiff is carrying on
business of bankers.
2 It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant approached the
plaintiff bank for term loan for Rs.3,97,000/- on 29/10/2015 for
purchasing EECO 5 SEATER AC Taxi under Canara Pragati Scheme
covered under GCTMSE scheme. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan
of Rs.3,97,000/- for purchase of car, upon agreeing with the terms and
conditions of the bank by the defendant. It is further contended by the
plaintiff bank that the defendant agreed to repay the said loan in 60
months. In consequence to the sanction of loan, the defendant has
executed following documents in favour of plaintiff :-
(i) Certificate of loan papers obtained on Form 482 dated
29/10/2015.
(ii) Letter evidencing execution of documents on Form NF 803
dated 29/10/2015.
(iii) Letter of undertaking re: Loans/Advances on Form NF
721/1L(50)01-2014 dated 29/10/2015.
(iv) Particulars of vehicles/machinery/equipment/livestock etc
Hypothecated on Form NF-373 executed by defendant
dated 05/11/2015.
(v) DEED OF HYPOTHECATION RE: VEHICLE on Form NF
722/1L(25)/11-2012 dated 29/10/2015.
(vi) Acknowledgment of Debt and Security on Form NF
760/2L(50)/12-2016 dated 02/06/2018.
-- 2 of 6 --
..3.. S.C. Suit No.59/2020
3 It is further contended by the plaintiff that the said loan
was disbursed to the defendant, but he failed and neglected to repay
the same. Thereafter, plaintiff issued notice calling upon the defendant
to pay the overdue amount outstanding, but in vain. It is further
contended that the amount of Rs.2,90,061.46/- became due and
recoverable against defendant, jointly and severally as on 07/08/2019
and prayed for grant of decree.
4 The summons were served upon the defendant, but he
remained absent, therefore, as per
roznama dated 14/02/2022, suit
proceeded ex-parte against the defendant.
5 Having regard to the contentions of plaintiff, following
points arise for my determination and I have recorded my findings
thereon for the reasons thereunder :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does the plaintiff prove that it advanced
loan to the defendant of Rs.3,97,000/- ?
Affirmative
2 Does the plaintiff prove that the
defendant failed to repay the loan as
agreed ?
Affirmative
3 Does the plaintiff prove that it is entitled
to charge interest as prayed for ?
Partly Affirmative
4 Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs
sought ?
Partly Affirmative
5 What order ? As per final order.
REASONS
6 In order to substantiate the contentions, the authorised
person of plaintiff entered the witness box and relied upon various
-- 3 of 6 --
..4.. S.C. Suit No.59/2020
documents (Exhibit-08 to 18) under list (Exhibit-07). Heard learned
advocate for plaintiff.
As to point Nos.1 to 3 :-
7 The evidence of authorised person of plaintiff remain
unchallenged. The record discloses that the defendant has executed the
loan document in favour of the bank, availed the loan facility, but failed
to repay as agreed. The Statement of Account shows that the defendant
has lastly paid an amount of Rs.49,988/- on 07/07/2018, thereafter,
failed to repay the installments towards loan and as per the record of
bank as on 07/08/2019, the amount of Rs.2,90,061.46/- became due
and recoverable. The default of the defendant shows that he has
deliberately avoided to pay the loan amount, thus, the plaintiff bank is
entitled for recovery of the same. Hence, I am of the view that the
plaintiff bank is entitled for interest from the date of default i.e.
07/08/2019, till realisation of entire due amount i.e. Rs.2,90,061.46/-.
8 The defendant remained absent though served, matter
proceeded ex-parte which is sufficient to draw an inference that the
defendant has not repaid the due amount and committed default. The
plaintiff bank having business of banking is based on the public fund,
therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the due amount from
the defendant as prayed for. In view of above discussions, I answer
point Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative.
9 So far as interest is concerned, the plaintiff is claiming
interest at the rate of 9.70% per annum from the defendant. No doubt
the plaintiff has suffered loss in business and profit, due to failure to
repay the amount by the defendant. Had it been paid to the plaintiff as
-- 4 of 6 --
..5.. S.C. Suit No.59/2020
per demand, they would have invested and would have earned profit
therefrom. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 07/08/2019, till its full
realisation. In view of above discussions, I answer point No.3 in partly
affirmative.
10 As the plaintiff bank is made constrained to file the suit for
recovery of loan amount, therefore, defendant is liable to pay the costs
of suit. In the result, I answer point No.4 accordingly and proceed to
pass the following order :-
ORDER
1. S. C. Suit No.59/2020 is hereby partly decreed with
costs.
2. Plaintiff do recover an amount of Rs.2,90,061.46/-
from the defendant with further interest at the rate of
9% per annum from 07/08/2019, till the recovery of
entire amount.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
(Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Bombay
Dated : 07/10/2023 C.R. No.15
Directly typed on : 07/10/2023
Draft corrected on : 09/10/2023
Signed on : 10/10/2023
-- 5 of 6 --
..6.. S.C. Suit No.59/2020
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
11/10/2023 (Ms. Sonali Sawant)
at about 11.05 a.m. Stenographer (Grade-III)
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar,
Judge, City Civil Court and
Addl. Sessions Judge
Court Room No.15, Gr. Mumbai
Date of pronouncement of Order : 07/10/2023
Order signed by Hon'ble Judge on : 10/10/2023
Order uploaded on : 11/10/2023
at about 11.05 a.m.
-- 6 of 6 --