Scribd
Upload
28 views5 pages

DLND030005232023 4 2023-12-14

Uploaded by

Nikita Srivastava
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views5 pages

DLND030005232023 4 2023-12-14

Uploaded by

Nikita Srivastava
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

IN THE COURT OF MS.

AMARDEEP KAUR, CIVIL JUDGE-I,


PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

CNR No. DLND03-00523/2023


CS No. 254/2023

In the matter of -
UCO Bank
A body corporate Constituted Under Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of
undertaking) Act, 1970,
Having Branch Office at:
40, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi -110028.
Through its Branch Manager ... Plaintiff

Versus
Sh. Durga Nand Jha
S/o Sh. Shashikant Jha
R/o W 53/26, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Near B-228, Naraina Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110028. ... Defendant

Date of Institution : 23.02.2023


Date of Reserving Judgment: 14.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 14.12.2023

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 90,347/- ALONG WITH INTEREST


EX PARTE JUDGMENT

1. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff has sought decree for
recovery of Rs.90,347/- in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the
defendant along with pendent lite and future interest @ 8.60 % per annum
from the date of filing the suit till its actual realization and costs of the

CS No. 254/2023 Page No. 1 of 5


suit.

2. The brief facts as submitted in plaint are that plaintiff bank is a


corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies Act (Acquisition
and Transfer of undertaking) having its Head office at No. 10, Biplabi
Trailokya Maharaj Sarani, Kolkata and has various branch Offices
including one branch office at 40, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New
Delhi -110028.. The plaint was originally instituted by Sh. Daksh Chetalt,
posted as Branch Manager, who was authorized vide General Board
Resolution. However, later the plaintiff moved an application for
substitution of AR which was allowed and Sh. Anivesh Shukla was
substituted to pursue the present complaint. It is submitted by the plaintiff
bank that the substituted AR is fully conversant with the facts of the suit
on the basis of the records maintained by the plaintiff bank and is thus
competent and authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and documents
and do all acts necessary for proper conduct of the suit.

3. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant approached the plaintiff


seeking the loan under “Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojna / Scheme for
purchasing E-Rickshaw and had applied for a loan on 20.09.2019 vide
prescribed application form and has also submitted relevant documents
which were accepted by the plaintiff bank and the defendant was
sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,35,000/-. The said loan was repayable by way of
60 equal installments (EMI) each of Rs.2776/- each and interest was
charged @ 8.60 per annum with monthly rests.

CS No. 254/2023 Page No. 2 of 5


4. It is further stated that defendant failed to maintain the financial
discipline and did not pay the installments regularly and his loan account
was declared NPA (Non-Performing Asset) on 18.12.2021. The plaintiff
bank issued legal notice dated 24.01.2023 with a request to the defendant
to regularize the loan account but the defendant failed to make any
payments. It is further stated, that a sum of Rs.90,347/- was due and
outstanding in the loan account of the defendant along with interest on the
date of filing of the present suit and hence, the present suit.

5. Summons for settlement of issues were served upon the defendant


through his sister on 02.05.2023. However, none appeared on behalf of the
defendant. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
19.07.2023.

6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for ex-parte evidence. AR of the


plaintiff Sh. Anivesh Shukla examined as PW-1, filed his evidence by way
of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the documents as under:-
a) Copy of General Board Resolution mark PW-1/1.
b) Original Loan application form Ex. PW-1/2.
c) Original Sanction letter Ex. PW-1/3.
d) Original agreement relating to term loan Ex. PW-1/4.
e) Certified copy of statement of accounts along with certificate
under section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/5(colly.).
g) Office copy of legal demand notice along with postal receipt Ex.

CS No. 254/2023 Page No. 3 of 5


PW-1/6.

7. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and accordingly ex-


parte PE was closed on 04.10.2023 and matter was fixed for ex-parte final
arguments.

8. I have perused the record in light of the relevant legal provisions


and arguments advanced.

9. Plaintiff bank has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.90,347/-
against the defendant along with interest @ 8.60 % per annum. The suit
has been filed within limitation period and this Court has jurisdiction to
decide the present case as per valuation.

10. The plaintiff has filed several original documents including original
Loan application form Ex. PW-1/2, original Sanction letter Ex. PW-1/3,
original agreement relating to term loan Ex. PW-1/4, certified copy of
statement of accounts along with certificate under section 65B Indian
Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/5(colly.), which established the commercial
relationship between the parties. Neither the witness was cross examined
nor any other evidence was led on behalf of the defendant who was
proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance. Hence, this court has no reason
to disbelieve the assertions of the plaintiff, which leads to a necessary
inference that defendant has failed to make the payment due to the plaintiff
along with the interests that accrued thereon.

CS No. 254/2023 Page No. 4 of 5


11. Keeping in view the un-rebutted testimony of PW1 and documents
relied by PW1, the plaintiff has been able to establish that defendant has
unlawfully withheld the amount due to the plaintiff and has not paid the
same to the plaintiff despite repeated demands and requests. As per the
statement of account Ex. PW1/5 a sum of Rs. 90,347/- was due and
outstanding in the loan account of the defendant on the date of filing of the
suit.

12. In view of the above discussion, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed and the plaintiff is awarded decree for recovery of Rs. 90,347/-
along with interest @ 8.60 % per annum. Further, cost of the suit is
also awarded.

13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

14. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.


Digitally signed
by AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date:
2023.12.13
16:31:23 +0530

Announced in the open Court (Amardeep Kaur)


on 14.12.2023 Civil Judge-I, New Delhi District
New Delhi

CS No. 254/2023 Page No. 5 of 5

You might also like