Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010106252019 Presented on : 07-06-2019
Registered on : 01-10-2019
Decided on : 26-08-2022
Duration : Y M D
03 02 19
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.583 OF 2021
(S.C. SUIT NO.2625 OF 2019)
Ex.21
Uco Bank
A banking company incorporated under
The Banking Companies (Acquisition &
Transfer of Undertakings Act 1970) having its
Head Office at 10, Biplabi Trailokya Maharaja
Surani, Kolkata (West Bengal) 700 001
and one of its Branch office at amongst others
at Mandvi Branch, 1st Floor, Alankar Building,
Vadgadi, Samual Street, Masjid West,
Mumbai 400 003,
through its Manager and Authorized Signatory
Vishal Pandit Sakharkar Age 40 years ..Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. Aayan Garments and Fabrics
Room No.3,
Ali Mohammed Abu and Sons Furniturewala Chawl,
Bagicha Compound, Dharavi, Mumbai 400 017.
2. Zoib Khan, aged 48 years
Proprietor of M/s. Aayan Garments and Fabrics.
Room No.3,
Ali Mohammed Abu and Sons Furniturewala Chawl,
Bagicha Compound, Dharavi, Mumbai 400 017. ..Defendants
-- 1 of 6 --
2
Ld. Advocate Priti Tare for plaintiff.
DefendantsExparte.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 26th day of August, 2022)
Suit is for recovery of an amount of
Rs.10,58,452.62/ with further interest.
2. Relevant facts in the plaint may be summarized 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
the sole proprietor of defendant No.1firm, carrying out garment
business. On 14/07/2016, defendants approached plaintiff bank
for a term loan facility under 'UCO Udyog Bandhu' for Rs.5 lacs
and cash credit of Rs.5 lacs. On 26/07/2016, plaintiff bank
sanctioned term loan of Rs.5 lacs and cash credit facility of Rs.5
lacs. Defendants executed documents such as term loan
agreement. Defendants agreed to repay loan in 108 equal
monthly installments of Rs.7,083/. Plaintiff bank charged interest
at the rate of 11.70% p.a. However, defendants failed to make
regular repayment of loan amount. Plaintiff issued demand
notice dated 28/11/2019 to defendants calling upon them to pay
the outstanding amount of Rs.10,58,452.62/. However,
defendants failed to make the payment. Hence, this suit.
-- 2 of 6 --
3
3. As per service affidavit (Ex.5), defendants were
deemed to be served with writ of summons, but, they failed to
tender their appearance. Hence, suit proceeded exparte by order
dated 14/07/2022.
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.10,58,452.62/ is
outstanding against 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 Rajiv Ranjan at Exh.06 and
relied upon following documents below list Ex.07 as under:
Ex.8 Certified copy of authority letter
Ex.9 Loan application form
Ex.10 Sanction letter
Ex.11 Loan agreement
Ex.12 Hypothecation agreement
Ex.13 Demand promissory note
Ex.14 Deed of hypothecation of goods
-- 3 of 6 --
4
Ex.15 Demand promissory note
Ex.16 colly Office copy of demand notice along with postal
acknowledgement
Ex.17 & 18 Statement of account
Ex.19 Particulars of claim
Plaintiff bank filed evidence closing pursis at Ex.20.
7. PW1 Rajiv Ranjan reiterated all the facts pleaded in
the plaint. He testifies that term loan of Rs.5 lacs and cash credit
facility of Rs.5 lacs was sanctioned by plaintiff bank to
defendants. Oral evidence of PW1 Rajiv Ranjan gets requisite
support from documents filed on record. Loan application Ex.9
shows that defendants have applied for loan. As per Sanction
letter Ex.10, loan was sanctioned to defendants. Defendants
executed documents such as loan agreement Ex.11 and
hypothecation agreement Ex.12. Defendants also executed
demand promissory notes Ex.13 and Ex.15. Statement of account
Ex.17 and Ex.18 show that defendants failed to repay the loan
amount. As per statement of account filed on record (Ex.17 and
Ex.18), term loan of Rs. 4,43,108/ and cash credit of
Rs.5,04,478/ is outstanding against defendant. By applying
interest at the rate of 11.70% p.a., plaintiff bank claimed an
amount of Rs. 10,58,452.62/. Defendants failed to contest the
suit and therefore the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank
remain unchallenged. Plaintiff bank has succeeded to prove that
an amount of Rs.10,58,452.62/ is outstanding against
-- 4 of 6 --
5
defendants. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get decree for an
amount of Rs.10,58,452.62/. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
8. Plaintiff bank claimed interest at the rate of 11.70%
p.a. which is an agreed rate of interest. Taking into consideration,
the nature of transaction, plaintiff bank is entitled for the same
from the date of filing of suit till its realization. In the result,
following order:
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No.583 of 2021 is decreed with
costs.
2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.10,58,452.62/
(Rupees Ten Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred
Fifty Two and Paise Sixty Two only) along with interest
@ 11.70% 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.
26/08/2022 SUNIL U.HAKE
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 26/08/2022
Transcribed on : 29/08/2022
Signed on : 30/08/2022
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
30/08/22 at 05.30 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
26/08/2022
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 30/08/22
Judgment/order uploaded on 30/08/22
-- 6 of 6 --