Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment in Suit No. 3315 of 2019 1
MHCC010115772019
Presented on : 13-11-2019
Registered on : 10-12-2019
Decided on : 07-12-2023
Duration : 4 Yr, 0 M, 24 D.
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.3315 OF 2019.
Exh.
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 Sakinaka Branch, ]
having address at First Floor, Narayan Buildings ]
Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, ]
Mumbai – 400 073, in the state of Maharashtra ]
represented by Mr. Watas Sitaram Ramji, ]
Age: Years, Manager. ]....Plaintiff.
Vs.
1.M/s. Mahavir Tours & Travels, ]
(Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar Mahavir Verma) ]
Building No. 17, A/H Wing, Room No. 103, ]
Sangharsh Nagar, Chandivali, Andheri (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 072. ]
2. Mr. Anil Kumar Mahavir Verma ]
(Proprietor of Mahavir Tour and Travels) ]
Age.: Not known, Adult, ]
Occupation.: Tour Operator Business, ]
Building No. 17, A/H Wing, Room No. 103, ]
Sangharsh Nagar, Chandivali, ]
-- 1 of 6 --
Judgment in Suit No. 3315 of 2019 2
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. ]….Defendants.
Appearance:
Adv. Manisha Vishwakarma for the plaintiff
Defendant – Exparte.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
Coram: Shri. U.C.Deshmukh.
Judge.
CR No.: 59.
Date : 07th December, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,61,985/- with
interest at the rate of 11.65% p.a.
The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case are as under :
2. The plaintiff contends that it is a Nationalised bank and it
constituted under Banking Companies Act, 1970. Defendant No.1 is a
proprietorship firm of which defendant No. 2 is proprietor. Defendant
No. 1 through defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff to sanction term
loan of Rs.6,62,000/-. Accordingly, defendants made an application to
sanction loan and agreed to execute several documents as asked by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff specifically contends that after execution of
documents, the plaintiff sanctioned a term loan of Rs.6,62,000/-. In
turn defendant executed letter of undertaking letter of evidence of
execution of document, Deed of Hypothecation etc. in favour of the
plaintiff. After disbursement of loan defendants became irregular in
loan. Hence, the plaintiff issued letter on 04.11.2019 through its
-- 2 of 6 --
Judgment in Suit No. 3315 of 2019 3
advocate. However, defendants failed to repay the same. Hence, this
suit.
3. Though defendants served with writ of summon but they
failed to appear. Hence, suit proceeded exparte vide order dated
05.12.2020. Thereafter plaintiff examined one Nirmal Kishor Pande at
Exh.6 and the plaintiff filed list of documents along with Exh. 7 which
are as follows :
Sr. No. Documents Exh. No.
1. Copy of Authority Letter Exh. 8
2. Original Loan Application Exh. 9
3. Original Sanction
Memorandum dated
04.03.2015
Exh. 10
4. Original Certificate of Loan
Papers Obtained.
Exh. 11
5. Original Letter evidencing
Execution of Documents
Exh. 12
6. Original Letter of
Undertaking re
Loans/Advances
Exh. 13
7. Original the particulars of
Vehicles
Exh. 14
8. Origianal Deed of
Hypothecation
Exh. 15
9. Office copy of Recall Letter
Postal Receipts
Exh. 16
10. Copy of Statement of
Account
Exh. 17
11. Particulars of Plaintiff’s claim
against Defendants
Exh. 18
-- 3 of 6 --
Judgment in Suit No. 3315 of 2019 4
4. The plaintiff close its evidence vide pursis at Exh. 11 with
contention that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as it has proved its
case.
5. Considering the facts, evidence and law applicable to the
case, following points arise for determination of the case:
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does the plaintiff prove that it is
entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.2,61,985/- at the rate of
18% p.a. from the defendants
from the date of the suit?
..Yes Partly..
Interest@ 9.65%p.a.
2. Whether the suit is within the
limitation?
..Yes..
3. What order and decree? Suit is partly
decreed.
:REASON:
As to Point No. 1 & 2
7. It is needless to say that as suit proceeded exparte, hence,
the pleading and evidence of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged.
Therefore, there is no reason to discard the case at threashhold.
8. The copy of Authority Letter, copy of Original Loan
Application, Sanction Memorandum, Certificate of Loan at Exh. 8 to 11
support the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had sanctioned
loan as it claim. The copy of letter evidencing in execution of document
undertaking, Particulars of Vehicle, Deed of Hypothication, documents
at Exh.12 to 15 show that defendants have availed loan facilities. The
-- 4 of 6 --
Judgment in Suit No. 3315 of 2019 5
copy of statement of account at Exh. 17 support the contention of the
plaintiff that defendants were bound to pay suit amount on 30.10.2019.
Thus, the plaintiff brought on record that defendants were bound to pay
suit amount as it claimed.
9. Now question arise whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recover an amount as it claimed and the suit is within limitation. The
statement of account at Exh.17 show defendants have lastly made
payment on 6th October, 2018. Thus, the suit is instituted on 13.
11.2019 is within the limitation. The statement of account further
manifest that the plaintiff has levied an interest at the rate of 9.65% on
the loan amount. In such circumstances, it will be just and proper to
award the interest at the rate of 9.65% p.a. Accordingly point Nos. 1 &
2 are answered.
10. Non-payment of suit amount resulted into this suit. Hence,
the plaintiff is entitled for its cost. Accordingly, in answer to point No.
3, following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Suit No. 3315 of 2019 is partly decreed with cost as under.
2. Defendant Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severeally, are ordered to
pay an amount of Rs.2,61,985/- (Rs. Two Lakhs, Sixty One
Thousand, Nine Hundred Eighty Five only) to the plaintiff with
interest at the rate of 09.65% p.a. from the date of the suit till
entire amount is realized.
3. Defendants shall to pay aforesaid decreetal amount
within 2 months of the order.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
-- 5 of 6 --
Judgment in Suit No. 3315 of 2019 6
5. Suit No. 3315 of 2019 is disposed off accordingly.
(Dictated and Pronounced in Open Court).
(U.C.Deshmukh)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court
Date.:07.12.2023 Greater Bombay (CR 59).
Declared on : 07.12.2023
Dictated on : 07.12.2023
Transcribed on : 18.12.2023
Checked on : 18.12.2023
Signed on :
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
20.12.2022 at 5.40 -p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI.U.C.Deshmukh,(C.R.No.59)
Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 07.12.2023
Order signed by P.O. on 20.12.2023
order uploaded on 20.12.2023
-- 6 of 6 --