Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: CS No.100409 / 2020
Canara Bank – Rahul
Judgment (Exh.22) 1 of 5
MHCC010115472019 Suit Filed on : 11.11.2019
Evidence over : 07.05.2024
Arguments Heard : 14.06.2024
Decided on : 14.06.2024
Duration : 04 Y, 07 M 03 Days
City Civil & Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court,
(Additional District Judge : Vijay S. Hingne, LL. M.)
Commercial Suit No. 100409 / 2020 Exhibit No. 22
Plaintiff : Canara Bank
Head Office : Bengloru, Karnataka State.
Branch Office : Byculla Branch,
Mumbai – 400 027.
VERSUS
Defendant : Rahul Prabhakar Pawale
Prop. : M/s. Manjeeri Tours & Travels
R / at : Room No. 18, Ground Floor,
11 / 12, Peru Chawl, Dr. B. A. Road,
Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai 400 012.
Appearances
Plaintiff
: Adv. Shri S. R. Kadam
Defendant
: Ex-parte
Suit for Recovery of . 4,39,940.94/-
₹
************************************************************************
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on this 14th Day of June, 2024)
Suit is preferred for recovery of . 4,39,940.94
₹
/- with
interest @ 11.50 % per annum.
-- 1 of 5 --
CS No.100409 / 2020
Canara Bank – Rahul
Judgment (Exh.22) 2 of 5
Case of Plaintiff :
2) Canara Bank, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (hereinafter,
plaintiff) is banking institution.
On 12.01.2016, defendant Rahul Prabhakar Pawale
applied for loan under Credit Facilities for purchase of Car for his
travel business, M/s. Manjeeri Tours & Travels.
On 28.01.2016, plaintiff sanctioned MSME Loan of
.4,58,000/- to defendant @ 10.70 %.	₹ Said loan was credited in
account of vendor i.e. M/s. Hare Krishna Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Defendant agreed to repay loan by Equated Monthly
Installment of . 7,954/-.	₹
Accordingly, defendant purchased Maruti Wagan R
CNG Car bearing No. MH-01-BT-8866 (hereinafter,
Car).
Defendant paid last installment on 31.01.2017. Hence,
said loan account was treated as NPA on 29.03.2017. There was
outstanding balance of . 4,21,917/- at the time of NPA.	₹
Plaintiff issued Legal Notice on 15.10.2018, asking
defendant to pay outstanding . 4,21,917/-. It was served on	₹
defendant on 15.10.2018, but defendant failed to pay the amount.
As defendant failed to repay, plaintiff seized the Car and
sold it on 27.10.2018 for . 1,50,000/-. Said amount was adjusted	₹
against outstanding car loan account.
3) Thereafter, plaintiff submitted dispute for Pre-Institution
Mediation on 08.02.2019. Notice was issued to opponent on
08.02.2019 and 31.07.2019. However, neither the envelope of
notice returned nor the opponent present. Hence, there was Non-
Starter Report on 09.09.2019. Therefore, plaintiff filed present
Commercial Suit No. 100409 / 2020 for recovery of .	₹
4,39,940.94/- with interest @ 11.50 % per annum.
Defendant :
4) Despite service of summons, defendant failed to appear
in the Suit. Hence, vide Order Dt. 05.04.2024, Suit was directed
to proceed ex-parte.
-- 2 of 5 --
CS No.100409 / 2020
Canara Bank – Rahul
Judgment (Exh.22) 3 of 5
Evidence of Plaintiff :
5) Plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence as :
PW1, Exh.7 : Evidence of Sijo Samuel, Manager of plaintiff.
Exh.9 : Copy of Application for Credit Facilities.
Exh.10 : Copy of Sanction Letter Dt. 28.01.2016.
Exh.11 : Copy of Receipt Dt. 28.01.2016.
Exh.12 : Copy of Receipt Dt. 29.01.2016 of Hare Krishna Auto
Exh.13 : Copy of Receipt Dt. 18.01.2016 of Hare Krishna Auto
Exh.14 : Confirmation of Delivery Form.
Exh.15 : Composite Hypothecation Agreement.
Exh.16 : Copy of notice Dt. 15.10.2018 and Acknowledgment.
Exh.17 : Statement of Account.
Exh.18 : Particulars of claim.
Exh.19 : Statement of Truth.
Exh.20 : Authority Letter
Exh.21 : Evidence closure pursis filed by plaintiff.
Points for determination :
6) Heard Adv. Shri S. R. Kadam for plaintiff. Perused
Record. Points for determination, findings and reasons are as
follows :
Points
Findings
1. Is plaintiff entitled for recovery
as prayed?................................ Partly in Affirmative
2. What Order?............................ As Final Order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Point No. 1 & No. 2 :
7) Plaintiff examined its Senior Manager Sijo Samuel
(PW1, Exh.7). He deposed in accordance with Plaint and claimed
that, defendant executed documents at Exh.9 to Exh. 15, availed
the loan facility and then deliberately avoided repayment.
8) Despite service of Summons, defendant did not
appeared in the Suit to state that, Suit is false or that he has made
repayment or that for some legal reasons, he is not liable to pay.
-- 3 of 5 --
CS No.100409 / 2020
Canara Bank – Rahul
Judgment (Exh.22) 4 of 5
9) Documents filed by bank are in original. There is
nothing suspicious in those unchallenged documents. Hence, they
can be relied upon. They prove transaction as alleged by plaintiff.
Thereby, plaintiff is entitled for recovery with interest.
Limitation :
10) As per plaintiff, loan was sanctioned on
28.01.2016.
Therefore, three years limitation for plaintiff to prefer
recovery Suit will conclude on,
27.01.2019.
However, Suit is filed on
11.11.2019
Hence, aspect of limitation is taken for consideration.
11) Plaintiff stated that, defendant paid last installment on
31.01.2017.
It is also case of plaintiff that, it has seized the Car and
sold it in auction on
27.10.2018 for . 1,50	₹ ,000/- and said amount
was adjusted in the loan account of defendant.
Said pleadings are unchallenged from defendant. Hence,
they are relied upon.
Hence, period of limitation, for plaintiff, to file recovery
Suit, will commence on
31.01.2017 and will conclude on
30.01.2020.
Similarly, if date of auction of car is considered i.e.
27.10.2018, then limitation will conclude on
26.10.2021.
On both counts, Suit being filed on
11.11.2019, it is
within limitation.
Interest:
12) Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 11.50 % per annum.
Perusal shows that, in letter of Sanction Dt. 28.01.2016
at Exh. 10, parties have agreed rate of interest @ 10.70 % p. a. If
parties have agreed on particular rate of interest, then such rate of
interest can be awarded.
However, it needs consideration that, defendant is not a
commercial industry. He appears to be individual borrower /
proprietor. In that circumstances, it would be just, legal and
-- 4 of 5 --
CS No.100409 / 2020
Canara Bank – Rahul
Judgment (Exh.22) 5 of 5
proper that the rate of interest @ 9 % is made applicable.
13) In view of unchallenged oral and documentary evidence
of the plaintiff, the Suit is entitled for Decree. Hence, the Points
are so answered and the Suit is partly allowed, as follows :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 100409 / 2020, Canara Bank Vs
Rahul Prabhakar Pawale, is partly decreed, with
proportionate cost.
2. Defendant, within three months from date of this Order,
shall pay, .	₹ 3,51,866/- ( .	₹ Three Lakhs Fifty One
Thousand Eight Hundred and Sisty-six only) to the
plaintiff, with interest @ 9 % per annum, from the date
of filing of the Suit, till its realization.
3. Court fee, if any, be refunded to the plaintiff as per rule.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Judgment pronounced in Open Court.
6. Parties be informed about their right to challenge this
Judgment and period of limitation for same.
7. After compliance and period of Appeal, Shirestedar and
AS to consign Record of the Suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 14.06.2024 (Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from
Android or iOS
-- 5 of 5 --