Final Order 2

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: C S No.1349 of 2021 -: 1 :- Ex-parte Judgment
MHCC010106172019
Presented on : 16.10.2019
Registered on : 21.12.2021
Decided on : 05.05.2025
Duration : YY: MM: DD
05 : 06 : 19
EXHIBIT NO.15
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, BOMBAY
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 1349 of 2021
Union Bank of India,
A Body Corporation constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of
Undertaking) at 1970, having its Head Office at
Mangalore, Karnataka.
And at Dadar (West) Branch, 401, AIF Building,
Near Portuguese Church, Ghokhale Road,
Mumbai- 400 028.
Represented by its Officer Mr. Amit Kumar
Baharti. ... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Deepak Kumar Sevaram Thappar,
Address: Chawl, No.10/180, Room No.C-6 1 / 2,
GTB Nagar, Near Panchayati Gurudwara,
Mumbai- 400 037. ... Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. A. S. KAZI
(COURT ROOM NO.14)
DATE : 05.05.2025.
-: Appearances: -
L.d. Adv. Sofiya Patel for the plaintiff.
Defendant Ex-parte.
-- 1 of 6 --
C S No.1349 of 2021 -: 2 :- Ex-parte Judgment
E X - P A R T E J U D G M E N T
1) The plaintiff Bank has filed the present suit against defendant
for recovery of sum of Rs.5,09,575/- in Term Loan Account as on
16.08.2019 with interest charged upto 16.08.2019 together with further
interest @ 11.90 % with monthly rests from 17.08.2019 till payment as
the advance was granted to the defendant for Commercial purposes
with the meaning of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2) The plaintiff is a body corporate, constituted and established
under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertaking) Act, 1970. Erstwhile ‘Corporation Bank’, merged with
‘Union Bank of India’, as per Government of India Notification dated
01.04.2019.
3) It is seen from the record that, the writ of summons was duly
served upon the defendant through RPAD on 14.02.2023. Inspite of due
service, the defendant failed to appear before the court within
prescribed period, hence this court proceeded present suit as Ex-parte
against him
vide order dated 13.12.2023.
4) Heard Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and perused the record.
5) It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that, the defendant
approached to the plaintiff’ bank for a Term Loan of Rs.6.10 Lakhs for
purchasing New TOYOTA LIVA DIESEL GD (MW) White. At the request
of the defendant, the plaintiff bank agreed to sanction a Term Loan of
Rs.6.10 Lakhs for purchase of above vehicle with rate of interest at
11.90 % p. a. (floating) at monthly rests, to be payable in 60 equal
monthly installment of Rs.13,539/- commencing from next month of
-- 2 of 6 --
C S No.1349 of 2021 -: 3 :- Ex-parte Judgment
disbursement against hypothecation of purchase vehicle, as per the
terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated
28.03.2016. In order to secure the loan, the defendant has executed
certain documents in favour of the plaintiff for the above loan purpose.
Thereafter, the plaintiff disbursed the said loan amount on the
defendant’s account.
6) It is further submitted that, the defendant has availed of and
utilized the said loan facility. After availing loan facility, the defendant
neglected and failed to pay monthly installments regularly and the
defendant failed to operate the said loan account as per the terms
conditions in which said facility is granted to it. Therefore, the loan
account of the defendant classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), as
per prudential norms. Thereafter, the plaintiff on numerous occasions,
called upon him to regularized the said loan, however, the defendant
failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount. Hence, the plaintiff
issued Legal Notice dated 11.02.2019 through its advocate, calling upon
him to pay outstanding amount with interest. But of no use. Hence, the
plaintiff constrained to file the above suit for recovery of above said
amount.
7) It is the case of the plaintiff that, an principal amount of
Rs.5,01,723/- and uncharged interest from 30.06.2019 to 16.08.2019
@ 11.90 p. a. amounting to Rs.5,09,575/- is due and recoverable from
the defendant. In support of its claim, the plaintiff has filed Affidavit in
Examination-in-Chief PW-1 at Exh.03. The plaintiff got proved
documents through this witness filed along-with list Exh.04. The
plaintiff has examined PW-01, Amir Kumar Bharti, Chief Manager /
Authorized Signatory of the plaintiff’s bank. The plaintiff has filed True
-- 3 of 6 --
C S No.1349 of 2021 -: 4 :- Ex-parte Judgment
Copy of Power of Attorney along-with the list of documents, thereby
witness has authorized to depose on behalf of the plaintiff’s bank. The
testimony of this witness has remained unchallenged.
8) The plaintiff has filed on record documents such as :-
Sanction Letter dated 28.06.2016 (Exh.5); Original Agreement Term
Loan dated 29.06.2016 (Exh.6); Original Agreement of Hypothecation
of Vehicle dated 29.06.2016 (Exh.7); Original Letter of Undertaking
dated 29.06.2016 (Exh.8); Details of Hypothecated Vehicle (Exh.9);
Original Delivery Receipt dated 30.04.2016 (Exh.10); Copy of Legal
Notice dated 11.02.2019 along-with Postal Receipt (Exh.11); Statement
of Account (Exh.12) and Certificate u/s 2A(a) to (c) of Banker’s Book of
Evidence Act along with Authority Letter (Exh.13 Colly.) The plaintiff
has also filed Evidence Closing Pursis at Exh.14.
9) It is also submitted that, the plaintiff has filed an application for
Pre-Institution Mediation in view of mandate of Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act, on 15.02.2019. However, notices issued as per
Rule 3 (3) of the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and
Settlement) Rule, 2018, but defendant failed to appear before the
Authority. Hence, the Secretary DLSA has issued Non-Starter Report on
23.05.2019. Therefore, in view of Proviso of Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act, the period during which, the parties remained
occupied with the Pre-Institution Mediation, such period shall not be
computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act.
10) It is further submitted that, the defendant had made last
payment of Rs.60,000/- on 17.05.2019 and the present suit is lodged on
16.10.2019, thus, it is within limitation.
-- 4 of 6 --
C S No.1349 of 2021 -: 5 :- Ex-parte Judgment
11) Upon perusal of documents at Exh.05 to Exh.13, which went
unchallenged, the plaintiff duly proved its claim against the defendant.
The testimony of plaintiff's witness has remained unshattered. There is
no challenge to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff.
Thus, in view of my above discussion and considering the pleadings and
evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff bank duly proved that,
the defendant is liable to pay due principal amount of Rs.5,01,723/-
with interest. Considering the nature of transaction, I am of the view
that, if the defendant is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9 % per
annum on due amount from the date of its actual due till its realization,
then it will sub-serve ends of the justice. Hence, my answer to point
No.1 in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1) Commercial Suit No.1349 of 2021 is Partly Decreed with Costs.
2) The defendant does pay jointly and severally an principal amount of
Rs.5,01,723/- together with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from
the date of its actual due till its full realization.
3) Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4) Commercial Suit No.1349 of 2021 disposed off accordingly.
(A. S. Kazi)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date: 05.05.2025. Mazgaon, Gr. Mumbai
(C.R. No.14)
Direct Typed On : 05.05.2025.
Signed on : 05.05.2025.
-- 5 of 6 --
C S No.1349 of 2021 -: 6 :- Ex-parte Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 05.05.2025 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
TIME: 04.50 p.m. Mr. Ashok Sudhakar Patil
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
HHJ Shri. A. S. Kazi.
(Court Room No.14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
05.05.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O.
on
05.05.2025
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 05.05.2025
-- 6 of 6 --