IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL
COURT: HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MONDAY, THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JUNE, 2019
O.S.NO. 1967 of 2016
Between:
Mr. Dillikar Hemanth Kumar, S/o. Late Dillikar Nagnath Rao, Aged 65 years, R/o. H.No.15-4-189/4, Osmanshahi,
Hyderabad – 500012. ...Plaintiff
&
Sri. Ramawatar Mor, S/o. Sri K.L. Mor, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 15-4-192, Near Old Bus Depot, Osmanshahi, Hyderabad- 500012.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 03-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Damodar Mundra, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant counsel J.Kumaresan and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to vacate and handover the possession of the suit schedule premises bearing
Municipal No.
15-4-188/1, situated at Near Old Bus Depot, Osmanshahi, Hyderabad and for Mesne Profit @ Rs. 40,000/- for the month of July,2016, and for future Mense Profit @ Rs.40,000/- per month from August,2016 to till the delivery of the possession, against the defendant.
Page.2 O.S.NO. 1967 of 2016
2.The case of the plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of the premises bearing Municipal No. 15-4-188/1, (old number 15-4-188), admeasuring 1080 sq. ft. situated at near Old Bus Depot, Osman-
Shahi, Hyderabad. The defendant is tenant of the schedule property and obtained the premises on rent from the plaintiff under Rental
Agreement, dated 1.12.2006. The present rent of the schedule property is Rs.7,000 per month. The defendant is a very irregular in payment of rent and in due of rents from January 2016 to June 2016 @ of Rs.7,000 per month amounting to Rs.42,000/-. The defendant at the time of inception of tenancy deposited Rs.35,000 as a security deposit refundable at the time of vacating the premises. The plaintiff issued ejectment notice on 7-6-2016 terminating the tenancy by the end of
June 2016 and thereby calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover physical possession of schedule property by 1-7-2016. In the said notice the plaintiff made very clear if the defendant continued to be in possession of suit property after 30th
June, 2016 he will be treated as trespasser and liable to pay Rs.40,000 per month as mesne profits from July 2016 onwards till delivery of possession to the plaintiff.
Hence, the suit.
3.The defendant filed his written statement and submitted that he paid rent until June, 2016. In the first week of July, 2016 he requested the plaintiff to receive the rent but the plaintiff demanded exorbitant increase in rent of Rs.30,000 per month. The defendant further submitted that in the month of May, 2016 while he was travelling on business purpose along with the group in Bidar, Karnataka he was robbed of his belongings and he initiated Criminal Proceedings in
Crime No. 85 of 2016 before Police Station, Chittaguppa, Bidar district,
Page.3 O.S.NO.
1967 of 2016
Karnataka. When the defendant was out of station and pursuing the criminal proceedings in Bidar, he was not aware of the receipt of
Notice issued by the plaintiff with a malafide intention to get exorbitant rents from the defendant. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.
4.On considering the pleadings and available material on record this court framed the following issues for consideration.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction
of the defendant from suit property and
future mesne profits as prayed for ?
Issue No. 2: To what relief ?
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff side, plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex A1 to A5 and on behalf of defendant, he himself examined as DW1 and during the cross examination of DW1 ExA6 was marked through DW1.
6.Heard learned counsel for appearing parties.
ISSUE NO.1:
7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from suit property and future mesne profits as prayed for ?
ExA1 is the Rental Agreement dated 01/12/2006, ExA2 is the
Rental receipt for December, 2015, dated 07/12/2015, ExA3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 07/06/2016 and ExA5 is the acknowledgement card, it is noticed
Page.4 O.S.NO.
1967 of 2016 that there is no dispute with regard to jurial relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant and also with regard to quantum of rent and also security deposit of Rs. 35,000/- by the defendant with the plaintiff and same is refundable at the time of vacating the premises.
8.As per the evidence of PW1, that the defendant was very irregular in payment of rents and defaulted in the rents from January, 2016 to June, 2016. On 07/06/2016 he issued ejectment notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over physical possession of the schedule property by 1st July, 2016 but the defendant failed to vacate the premises. From the cross examination of PW1 it is elicited that “the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant before filing of the present case. It is true as per rental agreement one month time has to give to the tenant to vacate the property. It is true that the legal notice was issued on 07/06/2016 with a direction to the defendant to vacate the premises on or before 30/06/2016. Witness says that we filed the suit in the month of August and more than one month time was granted to the tenant to vacate the property. It is true that the defendant used to come every month and issue cheque to me towards payment of rent. It is true after filing of the suit the defendants paid the rents for the period from January, 2016 to January, 2018 in the court by way of demand Draft for total amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. After that payment the defendant use to pay rents once for every two or three months.” The PW1 denied the suggestion put by counsel for defendant that the defendant used to pay rent regularly but I refused to receive the rent and issued legal notice, by contention that the defendant is in due of payment of rent is false.
Page.5 O.S.NO.
1967 of 2016
8.The contention of the defendant is that he paid the rents up to
June, 2016 is by way of cash. To establish the payment of rents upto June, 2016 the defendant has not admitted any document. From the cross examination of DW1 it is elicited that as under:
“Iam paying monthly rents through cheques to the plaintiff. I have paid rents for the period of January, 2016 to June, 2016 in the month of either June or July, 2018. It is true that after orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, I have paid the entire rents that is 1,75,000/- from January, 2016. Since then I am paying monthly rents regularly.
Witness confronted with the cheque issued by me towards 4 months rent @ Rs.7,000/- per month the same is marked as ExA6 that is cheque bearing no. 022616 dated 31/10/2018 for Rs.28,000/- drawn on Axis Bank , Himayathnagar Branch. Witness admits the address shown in ExA3 notice and the same was received by me, under ExA5 which bears signature of my staff. It is true that since I was not paying rents regularly and did not agree for enhancement of rents, witness adds that I used to pay the rents regularly. Witness further adds that the plaintiff has demanded 15% enhancement of rent as against agreed rate of 5% originally ExA1 rental deed was for a period of 11 months. There was no agreement subsequently in writing for renewal or for enhancement of rents.”
9.ExA1 is the rental agreement, dated 01/012/2006. As per the recitals of Rental Agreement at the time of entering into lease transaction both parties agreed that the period of rental agreement is for the period of (11) month commencing from 1st December, 2006.
So from ExA1, it appears that after (11)
Page.6 O.S.NO.
1967 of 2016months of stipulated period, the tenancy has been continuing on oral terms.
Section 106 of Transfer of property Act 1882 says that in the absence of contract or local law or usage to the contrary a lease of immovable property have any other parties other than agricultural purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessees by (15) days of notice.
10. ExA3 is the office copy of quit notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 07/06/2016. In the said notice it was mentioned that the tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff by the end of 30th June, 2016.
ExA4 and ExA5 are postal receipt and acknowledgement. Both ExA4 and ExA5 are reflecting the address of the defendant. Even though it was contended that the defendant was in Bidar at the relevant point of time, no proof was filed by the defendant to establish his absence in the address mentioned in ExA4 and ExA5. Notice of Quit Notice sent by registered post with an acknowledgement due to the correct address of the defendant. As the defendant failed to prove contrary it can be said that the notice was served on defendant and it is valid service of quit notice. The defendant also admitted in his cross examination after passing of orders by the Hon’ble Court he has paid the rents of Rs.1,75,000/- through Demand Draft in the court and also admitted that ExA3 notice is received by him and also admitted that originally ExA1 rental deed was for a period of 11 months there was no agreement subsequently in writing for renewal or for enhancement of rents.
11. for the above said reasons, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to get eviction of the defendant/tenant by the end of June, 2016 and with regard to Mesne Profits, the Mesne Profits can be decided only after full pledged trial.
Page.7 O.S.NO.
1967 of 2016
Accordingly Issue no.I is answered.
ISSUE NUMBER II : To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to vacate and handover physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within (3) months from the date of this Judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the defendant as per procedure established by law. The plaintiff is directed to file a separate petition for the
Mesne Profits of the schedule property.
Typed to my dictation by the copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of June, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL
COURT, HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Dillikar Hemanth Kumar DW1 : Ramavator Mor
DOCUMENTS MARKED
ExA1is the Rental Agreement dated 01-12-2006.
ExA2 is the Rental Receipt for December 2015 dated 07-12-2015.
ExA3 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 07-06-2016.
Page.8 O.S.NO.
1967 of 2016
ExA4 is the RPAD Receipt dated 07-06-2016.
ExA5 is the Acknowledgement Card.
ExA6 is the original cheque bearing no. “022616” dated 31-10-2018 for Rs.28,000/-(During the cross examination of DW1 same was marked through DW1)
DOCOMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT : NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FRIDAY, THIS THE 26 th DAY OF April, 2019
O.S.NO. 1494 of 2018
Between:
ANDHRA BANK CREDIT CARD DIVISION
II FLOOR, ANDHRA BANK BUILDING
SULTAN BAZAR, KOTI,
HYDERABAD.
(A Government of India undertaking Represented by its Chief Manager)
...Plaintiff
&
SRINIVAS VADLA
D/o Krishnaiah Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.8-62, Shiva Narayana Puram, Badangpet, Near Lord’s Talent High School, Saoonagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State – 500058.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 26.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. R.Mani Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 Rule 1 read with Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure to pass Judgment and
Decree in favour of the Plaintiff Bank and against the Defendant for
Rs. 2,95,417.32 Ps. And future interest at 2.95% per month monthly compounded by way of service charges on
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FRIDAY, THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF April, 2019
O.S.NO. 203 of 2019
Between: Abhishek Parikh S/o Late Rajesh Kumar, Aged 31 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o H.No. 15-7-20, Kolsawadi Begumbazar, Hyderabad – 500012.
...Plaintiff
&
M/s. J.J. Foods, Represented by Mr.Jitender Baheti, S/o Sri.Jagdish Chander Baheti, At H.No No. 15-7-28/3, Kolsawadi, Begumbazar, Hyderabad.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 29.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Damodar Mundra, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 read with
Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to handover the possession of the suit schedule premises No. 15-7-28/3, situated at Kolsawadi, Begumbazar,
Hyderabad. A Decree of furture Mesne Profit @ Rs. 25,000/- per month from January,2019 till delivery of the possession of suit schedule property against the defendant.
Page.2 O.S.NO. 1967
of 2016
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The plaintiff submits
5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit
schedule premises and mesne profits from the defendant as
prayed for?
6.The plaintiff Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. ExA1 is the Office Copy of Legal notice dated 21-11-2018,
ExA2 is the Postal receipt, ExA3isthePostal
Acknowledgement, ExA4 is the Bank Statement, ExA5 Original gift deed, dated 17-3-1977, ExA6 Original Sale Deed, dated 12-11-1971.
In the result,
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rdday of April, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD
Page.4 OS. No.
203 of 2019
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Abhishek Parikh
EXPARTE
ExA1 is the Office Copy of Legal notice dated 21-11-2018
ExA2 is the Postal receipt.
ExA3 is the Postal Acknowledgement.
ExA4 is the Bank Statement.
ExA5 Original gift deed, dated 17-3-1977.
ExA6 Original Sale Deed, dated 12-11-1971.
Exhibits A1 To A6 marked.
Though the defendant is set exparte, the defendant called for cross examination, but not turned up. Hence cross examination is treated as nil.
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FRIDAY, THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF April, 2019
O.S.NO. 2610 2018
Between: M/s. Shyam Pheno – Chem Pvt Ltd., rep By its Managing Director, Having their office at 15-2-417/B, 204, 2nd Floor, Landmark Centre, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad.
...Plaintiff
M/s. Astra Ventures Limited, Repy By its Managing Director, Having their office at ADD- 411, Embassy Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 29.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Damodar Mundra, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to pay the suit amount i.e. Rs.2,08,153/- along with pendentlite and future interest @ 24 per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.
Page.2 OS. No.
2610 of 2018
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: It is submitted that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the
Provisions of CompaniesAct, 1956 and the person who signed the plaint is the Dirctor of the plaintiff Company and the company is having its registered office situated at Siddamber Bazar, Hyderabad.
The plaintiff Company is a manufacturer of Cardinal Residue and other allied productes and during the course of business, the defendant company approached the plaintiff company for purchase of Residue of 74 drums (14523 kgs) under Invoice No. 161, dated 13-11-2015 amounting to Rs.1,28,433/- and also the plaintiff company submits that there is a standing account of the Defendant company in the books of the plaintiff and as per the Books of Account as on 03-11- 2018 the Defendant Company is due and payable for a sum of Rs.
1,28,433/- to the plaintiff.
3.Further plaintiff company submits that even after informing the defendant about the due payment, the Defendant has been avoiding to make the payment inspite of intimation of the said fact, the
Defendant had failed and neglected to pay the said amount on one pretext or the other and as per the terms of the business, the defendant is under an obligation to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of invoice, failing which the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum and after intimation of the said fact to the defendant, the defendant failed to pay the amount as such the plaintiff got issued Legal Notice on dated: 30-07-2018, calling upon the defendant to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 1,28,433/- along with interest @ 24% per annum within 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice. The said notice was duly delivered to the
Defendant Company on 04-08-2018, to which no reply was given by the Defendant.
Page.3 OS. No.
2610 of 2018
4.The plaintiff company respectfully submits that, the defendant is due and payable an amount of Rs.1,28,433/- along with interest of Rs.
79,720/- from the period of 01-02-2016 to 30-10-2018 @ 24% per annum. Thus the defendant is due and payable a sum of Rs.
2,08,153/- along with interest, till the date of the filing of the suit. In view of the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff company is left with no other alternative than to file this present suit for recovery of amounts against the defendant.
5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of
suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?
6.The debt Manager of the plaintiff Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Certificate of
Incorporation, Ex.A2 is the Statement of Account of Defendant company in the
Books of Account of plaintiff Company, dated 03-10-2018, Ex.A3 Original Invoice No.
161, dated 13-11-2015, Ex.A4 Copy of Legal Notice issued by plaintiff Company to the defendant with postal receipt, dated 30-07-2018, Ex.A5 Postal track of the Notice,
dated 04-08-2018, Ex.A6 Way bills generated from on line.
Page.4 OS. No.
2610 of 2018
In the result,
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 thday of March, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD
Page.5 OS. No.
2610 of 2018
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Shyam Sunder Lahoti EXPARTE
Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Certificate of Incorporation.
Ex.A2 is the Statement of Account of Defendant company in the Books of Account of plaintiff Company, dated 03-10-2018.
Ex.A3 Original Invoice No. 161, dated 13-11-2015.
Ex.A4 Copy of Legal Notice issued by plaintiff Company to the defendant with postal receipt, dated 30-07-2018.
Ex.A5 Postal track of the Notice, dated 04-08-2018.
Ex.A6 Way bills generated from on line.
Exhibits A1 To A6 marked.
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FRIDAY, THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF March, 2019
O.S.NO. 218 2018
Between: M/s ICICI Bank Limited Having its branch office at 5-9-2, JVL Towers, Opp: Assembly, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Rep., by its Debt Manager & G.P.A Holder, Sri Venkatesh Prodduturi, S/o. Sri Nagesh Prodduturi Aged 28 years, Occ: Debt Manager R/o. Hyderabad.
...Plaintiff
Vangala Nagarjun, S/o Vangala Yakaiah Aged about: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee R/o: H.No. 11-91/3, Kakatiya Nagar, Opp/Ambedkar Theatre, Harijan Wada Thorrur Warangal Warangal 506163
...Defendant
This suit coming on 26.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 read with Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to pay the suit amount i.e. Rs.2,65,533.80Ps/-future interest 16% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.
Page.2 OS. No. 218
of 2018
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The plaintiff bank is a body incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 and a banking company under the provisions of the Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 and is having its registered office at “Land
Mark” Rave Course Circle, Vadadora – 390007 having its Corporate office at ICICI Bank Tower, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, having its branch at 5-9-2, JVL Tower, Opp Assembly, Saifabad,
Hyderabad, the Debt Manager & G.P.A, Holder, Sri Venkatesh
Podduturi, S/o Nagesh Podduturi, aged 28 years, the bank is party so appointed by a power of attorney executed pursuant to a resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Director passed on dated 03-05- 2002 to 30-10-2009 and vide power of Attorney Mr. Sri Venkatesh.P is empowered to file prosecute and to verify and execute all
Vakalatnamas, applications affidavits, power of Attorney Criminal,
Revenue, Judicial and quasi judicial officer or officer exercising of attorney on dated 30-10-2009.
3.Further the plaintiff Bank submits that the defendant approached this bank for the purpose of Personal Loan and made Application form
dated 17-02-2016 and as per their request, plaintiff Bank sanctioned
the Personal Loan of
Rs. 3,00,000 vide Loan A/c No. LPWNL00034351792, and agreed to abide to the terms and conditions stipulated by the bank under Loan
Agreement dated 29-03-2016. As per the terms of the loan agreement, payment tenure agreed by the defendants 48 equated months at a 9.62 rate of interest. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs.8655/- and the plaintiff further submits that this loan amount is to be paid with effect from 1/5/2016. After availing the loan the defendant failed to keep the loan account regular, inspite of repeated requests
Page.3 OS. No.
218 of 2018 and demands contrary to the assurances and promises made by the defendant and the Personal Loan amount sanctioned Rs.3,00,000 and the amount paid till date along with interest is Rs.1,13,674/- and there is a balance outstanding of Rs. 2,65,533.80/- as on dated 21-11-2017 as the defendant was failure in repayment of loan amount the plaintiff is constrained to issue Loan Recall Notice dated 10-10-2017 and asked the defendant to pay the outstanding amounts along with the interest and other charges within 7 days from the receipt of this notice. The notice sent to the defendant was neither returned nor received any acknowledgement. As such we had obtained internal postal tracking in which it is clearly stated that the article is delivered to the defendant and the postal receipt dated 12-10-2017 not returned, inspite of the same, the defendant did not take any steps for clearing the loan amounts.
4.Lastly the plaintiff bank submits that as they left with no other alternative, they constrained to file the present suit for recovery of outstanding amount. The statement of account along with certificate
U/S 2(A) of banker’s Book of Evidence Act showing outstanding Rs.
2,65,533.80/- as on dated 21-11-2017.
5.Though served with summons, the defendant did not choose to appear before the court and remained exparte.
6.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of
suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?
7.In order to prove the contention, the Manager of the plaintiff
Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 Power of Attorney ( Notorized Copy)
Page.4 OS. No.
218 of 2018
Ex.A2 Preliminary credit facility application form, dt:17-02-2016,
Ex.A3 Credit Application Form dt: 17-03-2016,Ex.A4 Sanction Letter (DM), dt: 28-02-2016, Ex.A5 Loan Recall Notice, dt: 10-10-2017, Ex.A6
Statement of Account, dt: 21-11-2017.
8.As per the evidence of PW1 and documents referred to above, the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff
Bank remained unchallenged, since the defendant remained exparte.
From the said unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff Bank, it is clear that defendant has availed personal Loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- and agreed the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank and promised to repay the same in (36) equated monthly installments at Rs.12,435/- per month, together with interest, but, he did not follow the repayment schedule. It is also clear from the said evidence that inspite of repeated oral demands and also issuance of loan recall notice, the defendant has not choosen to pay the amount due ExA5, statement of Account, reflects the payments made and the amounts due by the defendant. In the circumstances, there can not be any hesitation to hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant together, with interest. Accordingly, point is answered.
In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,533.80Ps/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty five thousand five hundred thirty three and eighty paise only) to the plaintiff Bank together with interest thereon at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs. 2,65,533.80Ps/- and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.
Page.5 OS. No.
218 of 2018
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 thday of March, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Syed Sadik Ali EXPARTE (Manager)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 Power of Attorney ( Notorized Copy)
Ex.A2 Preliminary credit facility application form, dt:17-02-2016.
Ex.A3 Credit Application Form dt: 17-03-2016.
Ex.A4 Sanction Letter (DM), dt: 28-02-2016.
Ex.A5 Loan Recall Notice, dt: 10-10-2017.
Ex.A6 Statement of Account, dt: 21-11-2017.
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FRIDAY, THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF March, 2019
O.S.NO. 1046 OF 2018
Between: M/s ICICI Bank Limited Having its branch office at 5-9-2, JVL Towers, Opp: Assembly, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Rep., by its Debt Manager & G.P.A Holder, Sri Venkatesh Prodduturi, S/o. Sri Nagesh Prodduturi Aged 28 years, Occ: Debt Manager R/o. Hyderabad.
...Plaintiff
Katiki Reddy Ramesh Babu S/o Pochalu Katiki Reddy Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Pvt employee R/o: K-43, NRR Puram, Near Vijetha Th, Borabanda Hyderabad 500018.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 26.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 read with Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to pay the suit amount i.e. Rs.2,99,098.94Ps/- with future interest @16% p.a.
from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.
Page.2 OS. No.
1046 of 2018
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The plaintiff bank is a body incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 and a banking company under the provisions of the Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 and is having its registered office at “Land
Mark” Rave Course Circle, Vadadora – 390007 having its Corporate office at ICICI Bank Tower, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, having its branch at 5-9-2, JVL Tower, Opp Assembly, Saifabad,
Hyderabad, the Debt Manager & G.P.A, Holder, Sri Venkatesh
Podduturi, S/o Nagesh Podduturi, aged 28 years, the bank is party so appointed by a power of attorney executed pursuant to a resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Director passed on dated 03-05- 2002 to 30-10-2009 and vide power of Attorney Mr. Sri Venkatesh.P is empowered to file prosecute and to verify and execute all
Vakalatnamas, applications affidavits, power of Attorney Criminal,
Revenue, Judicial and quasi judicial officer or officer exercising of attorney on dated 30-10-2009.
3.Further the plaintiff Bank submits that the defendant approached this bank for the purpose of Personal Loan and made Application form
dated 4/8/2016 and as per their request, plaintiff Bank sanctioned the
Personal Loan of
Rs. 3,50,000 vide Loan A/c No. LPHYD00034681272, and agreed to abide to the terms and conditions stipulated by the bank under Loan
Agreement dated 18-08-2016. As per the terms of the loan agreement, payment tenure agreed by the defendants 36 equated months at a 9.10 rate of interest. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs.12435 and the plaintiff further submits that this loan amount is to be paid with effect from 10/9/2016. After availing the loan the defendant failed to keep the loan account regular, inspite of repeated requests and demands contrary to the assurances and promises made by the defendant
Page.3 OS. No.
1046 of 2018 and the Personal Loan amount sanctioned Rs.3,50,000 and the amount paid till date along with interest is Rs.1,39,124 and there is a balance outstanding of Rs. 2,99,098.94 as on dated 28-02-2018 as the defendant was failure in repayment of loan amount the plaintiff is constrained to issue Loan Recall Notice dated 14-12-2018 and asked the defendant to pay the outstanding amounts along with the interest and other charges within 7 days from the receipt of this notice. The notice sent to the defendant was neither returned nor received any acknowledgement. As such we had obtained internal postal tracking in which it is clearly stated that the article is delivered to the defendant and the postal receipt dated 18-12-2017 not returned, inspite of the same, the defendant did not take any steps for clearing the loan amounts.
4.Lastly the plaintiff bank submits that as they left with no other alternative, they constrained to file the present suit for recovery of outstanding amount. The statement of account along with certificate
U/S 2(A) of banker’s Book of Evidence Act showing outstanding Rs.
2,99,098.94 as on dated 28-02-2018.
5.Though served with summons, the defendant did not choose to appear before the court and remained exparte.
6.On behalf of plaintiff Bank, its manager examined as PW1 and got marked ExA1 to A5.
7.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of
suit amount along with interest from the defendant as prayed
for?
8.In order to prove the contention, the Manager of the plaintiff
Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of
Page.4 OS. No.
1046 of 2018 the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the Power of Attorney ( Notorized Copy), Ex.A2 is the Preliminary credit facility application form, dt: 04-08-2016, Ex.A3 is the Sanction Letter, dt: 18-08-2016,
Ex.A4 is the Loan Recall Notice, dt: 14-12-2017, Ex.A5 is the
Statement of Account,
dt: 23-03-2018.
9.As per the evidence of PW1 and documents referred to above, the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff
Bank remained unchallenged, since the defendant remained exparte.
From the said unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff Bank, it is clear that defendant has availed personal Loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- and agreed the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank and promised to repay the same in (36) equated monthly installments at Rs.12,435/- per month, together with interest, but, he did not follow the repayment schedule. It is also clear from the said evidence that inspite of repeated oral demands and also issuance of loan recall notice, the defendant has not choosen to pay the amount due ExA5, statement of Account, reflects the payments made and the amounts due by defendant. In the circumstances, there can not be any hesitation to hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant together, with interest. Accordingly, point is answered.
In the result, he suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,99,098.94Ps/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety nine thousand ninety eight and ninety four paise only) to the plaintiff Bank together with interest thereon at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.2,99,098.94 Ps/- and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.
Page.5 OS. No.
1046 of 2018
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 th day of March,2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Syed Sadik Ali EXPARTE (Manager)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 Power of Attorney ( Notorized Copy)
Ex.A2 Preliminary credit facility application form, dt: 04-08-2016.
Ex.A3 Sanction Letter, dt: 18-08-2016.
Ex.A4 Loan Recall Notice, dt: 14-12-2017.
Ex.A5 Statement of Account, dt: 23-03-2018
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FRIDAY, THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF March, 2019
O.S.NO. 1047 OF 2018
Between: M/s ICICI Bank Limited Having its branch office at 5-9-2, JVL Towers, Opp: Assembly, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Rep., by its Debt Manager & G.P.A Holder, Sri Venkatesh Prodduturi, S/o. Sri Nagesh Prodduturi Aged 28 years, Occ: Debt Manager R/o. Hyderabad.
...Plaintiff
Mohammed Rehman sharief, S/o Ismail Sharief Mohamed Aged about: 24 years, Occ: Pvt employee R/o: D.No. 2-22-306/1/1. 1sr Floor, Near Vishwanath Cinemal Hall, KPHB Hyderabad 500072.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 26.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 read with Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to pay the suit amount i.e. Rs.2,76,257.40Ps/- with future interest @16% p.a.
from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization.
Page.2 OS. No.
1047 of 2018
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The plaintiff bank is a body incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 and a banking company under the provisions of the Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 and is having its registered office at “Land
Mark” Rave Course Circle, Vadadora – 390007 having its Corporate office at ICICI Bank Tower, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, having its branch at 5-9-2, JVL Tower, Opp Assembly, Saifabad,
Hyderabad, the Debt Manager & G.P.A, Holder, Sri Venkatesh
Podduturi, S/o Nagesh Podduturi, aged 28 years, the bank is party so appointed by a power of attorney executed pursuant to a resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Director passed on dated 03-05- 2002 to 30-10-2009 and vide power of Attorney Mr. Sri Venkatesh.P is empowered to file prosecute and to verify and execute all
Vakalatnamas, applications affidavits, power of Attorney Criminal,
Revenue, Judicial and quasi judicial officer or officer exercising of attorney on dated 30-10-2009.
3.Further the plaintiff Bank submits that the defendant approached this bank for the purpose of Personal Loan and made Application form and as per their request, plaintiff Bank sanctioned the Personal Loan of Rs. 2,70,000 vide Loan A/c No. LPHYD00034926843, and agreed to abide to the terms and conditions stipulated by the bank under Loan
Agreement dated 17-10-2016. As per the terms of the loan agreement, payment tenure agreed by the defendants 60 equated months at a 9.67% rate of interest. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs. 6709 and the plaintiff further submits that this loan amount is to be paid with effect from 10/11/2016. After availing the loan the defendant failed to keep the loan account regular, inspite of repeated requests and demands contrary to the assurances and promises made by the defendant and the Personal Loan
Page.3 OS. No.
1047 of 2018 amountsanctioned Rs.2,70,000 and the amount paid till date along with interest is Rs. 60,423 and there is a balance outstanding of Rs.
2,76,257.40 as on dated 28-02-2018 as the defendant was failure in repayment of loan amount the plaintiff is constrained to issue Loan
Recall Notice dated 14-12-2017 and asked the defendant to pay the outstanding amounts along with the interest and other charges within 7 days from the receipt of this notice. The notice sent to the defendant was neither returned nor received any acknowledgement.
As such we had obtained internal postal tracking in which it is clearly stated that the article is delivered to the defendant and the postal receipt dated 18-12-2017 not returned, inspite of the same, the defendant did not take any steps for clearing the loan amounts.
4.Lastly the plaintiff bank submits that as they left with no other alternative, they constrained to file the present suit for recovery of outstanding amount. The statement of account along with certificate
U/S 2(A) of banker’s Book of Evidence Act showing outstanding Rs.
2,76,257.40 as on dated 28-02-2018.
5.Though the defendant served with summons, but he did not choose to appear before the court and remained exparte.
6.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of
suit amount along with interest from the defendant as
prayed for?
7.In order to prove the contention, Manager of the plaintiff Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.
Page.4 OS. No.
1047 of 2018
Ex.A1 Power of Attorney, Ex.A2 Preliminary credit facility application form, dt: 07-10-2016, Ex.A3 Credit Application, dt: 10-10-2016, Ex.A4
Sanction Letter, dt: 17-10-2016, Ex.A5 Loan Recall Notice, dt: 14-12- 2017,Ex.A6 Statement of Loan Account, dt:28-02-2018.
8.As per the evidence of PW1 and documents referred to above, the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff
Bank remained unchallenged since the defendant remained exparte.
From the said unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff Bank, it is clear that defendant has availed personal Loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- and agreed the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank and promised to repay the same in (60) equated monthly installments at Rs.9856/- per month, together with interest, but, he did not follow the repayment schedule. It is also clear from the said evidence that inspite of repeated oral demands and also issuance of loan recall notice, the defendant has not choosen to pay the amount due ExA6, statement of
Loan Account, where in clearly reflects the payments made and the amounts due by defendant. In the circumstances, there can not be any hesitation to hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant together, with interest. Accordingly, point is answered.
In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,76,257.40Ps/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy six thousand two hundred fifty seven and fourty paise only) to the plaintiff Bank together with interest thereon at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs. 2,76,257.40Ps and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.
Page.5 OS. No.
1047 of 2018
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 thday of March, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: Syed Sadik Ali EXPARTE (Manager)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 Power of Attorney.
Ex.A2 Preliminary credit facility application form, dt: 07-10-2016.
Ex.A3 Credit Application, dt: 10-10-2016.
Ex.A4 Sanction Letter, dt: 17-10-2016.
Ex.A5 Loan Recall Notice, dt: 14-12-2017.
Ex.A6 Statement of Loan Account, dt:28-02-2018
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL
COURT : HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
TUESDAY, THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
O.S.NO. 2149 OF 2018
Between: Indian Bank, a Nationalized Bank constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, V of 1970 having its Head Office at No.66, Royapettah, Chennai & among other places A branch at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. Represented by it’s A.G.M.
...Plaintiff
Kiran Reddy Kottakapolu S/o Sri K.Satti Reddy Age: Major, Occ. :Business, R/o H.No.7-1-564, Near MRO Office, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 38.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 04.02.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Rakesh Kumar Heda, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 read with
Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to pay the suit amount i.e. Rs.43,385.10Ps/- with future interest @10.70% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of repayment in full.
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The defendant submitted loan
Page. 2 OS. No.
2149 of 2018 application dt.29-09-2015 for sanctioning the loan to do the business and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.50,000/- vide sanction letter dt.29-09-2015 as per the sanction letter, the defendant was required to repay the loan amount in 36 EMIs together with interest and the Defendant executed an Term Loan Agreement, Agreement of
Hypothecation of movables, Demand pro note for Rs. 50,000/and other necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank on 29-09-2015 the Defendant agreed to repay the loan amount, as above, with interest @ 11.20% p.a. with monthly rents and also at the revised rates and rents as per the guidelines of RBI/norms of the plaintiff bank. Further, the defendant agreed for the plaintiff bank charging penal interest @ 2% p.a.
over and above the above rate of interest in the event of default in repayment of the loan amount/installments.
3. The Defendant committed defaulted in repayment of loan installments which is reflected in the Statement of Account and plaintiff bank made several requests and demands to the defendant to liquidate the loan dues but in vain thereafter, plaintiff bank got issued legal notice dt.18-09-2018 to the defendant calling upon him to settle the loan account. The acknowledgment or returned envelope not yet received. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the amount outstanding in the above loan account of the defendant the defendant is due and liable to pay the sum of
Rs.35,806.21ps/-towards the principal and Rs.7,578.89ps/- towards the interest i.e. total amounting to Rs.43,385.10ps./-outstanding as on 25-09-2018.
4.The interest charged by the plaintiff bank is reasonable and in accordance with the guidelines of RBI and there is contract between the parties. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled to claim the contractual rate of interest during pendente
Page. 3 OS.No.
2149 of 2018 lite also. Further, contractual rate of interest is also saved under section 21-A of
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the plaintiff has a right to charge the interest at the rate on the loan account at the current rate as per the directions of RBI issued from time to time.
5. Though served with summons to the defendant through substituted service by way of paper publication and the defendant did nto choose to appear before the court and remained exparte.
6.On behalf of the plaintiff Bank its Senior Manager is examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9.
7.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of
suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?
8.The Senior Manager of the plaintiff Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the loan application dated 29.09.2015 submitted by defendant. Ex.A2 is the sanction ticket dated 29.09.2015 submitted by plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the DP Note dated 29.09.2015 executed by defendants. Ex.A4 is the term loan agreement dated 29.09.2015 executed by defendants. Ex.A5 is the
Hypothecation agreement dated 29.09.2015 executed by defendants.
Ex.A6. Is the legal notice dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff.
Ex.A7 is the RP Receipt dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff. Ex.A8 is the statement of account dated 25.09.2018 of defendant loan account. Ex.A9 is the certificate of statement of account of defendant loan account.
Page. 4 OS. No.
2149 of 2018
9.As per the evidence of Pw1, the defendant has submitted Loan
Application dated29.09.2015 under ExA1 for sanction of the loan from the plaintiff Bank for to do the business and same was sanctioned
Rs.50,000/- to the defendant dated29.09.2015 under ExA2 and the defendant(Borrower) accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in
ExA2 i.e., sanction ticket. For repayment of loan together with interest and defendant executed promissory note dated 29.09.2015 under
ExA3 and term loan agreement under ExA4 in favour of plaintiff Bank.
And also the defendant executed agreement of hypothecation of movables in favour of plaintiff Bank as security under Ex A5.
10. Ex A8 is the statement of account of defendant dated 25-09-18 from ExA8 it is clear that the plaintiff Bank maintained statement of account in the name of defendant in which it is clearly reflects that the payment made by the defendant and committed default in repayment of loan installments and the defendant not followed the schedule of installments. The plaintiff Bank demanded the defendant for repayment of due loan amount and issued legal notice dated 18-09-18 under Ex A6.
11. From the evidence of PW1 and plaint averments the defendant is due and liable to pay the sum of Rs.35,806.21Ps/- towards the principle and Rs.7,578.89/- towards the interest i.e., total amounting to Rs.43,385.10Ps./- outstanding as on 25-09-2018.
12. From the evidence of PW1 and from the ExA1 to A9 it is clear that the defendant availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff Bank and agreed the terms and conditions for repayment and not followed the repayment schedule and became default.
Page. 5 OS. No.
2149 of 2018
13. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff Bank is unchallenged and the defendant did not choose to appear before the court, hence the plaintiff Bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant accordingly point is answered.
In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay Rs.43,385.10/-Ps.( Rupees forty three thousand three hundred and eighty five rupees and ten paise only) to the plaintiff Bank together with interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on the principle amount of Rs.35,806.21Ps/- and further interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 12 th day of February, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
Page.6 OS.No.
2149 of 2018
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: G.ADINARAYANA EXPARTE (Senior Manager)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 is the loan application dated 29.09.2015 submitted by defendant
Ex.A2 is the sanction ticket dated 29.09.2015 submitted by plaintiff
Ex.A3 is the DP Note dated 29.09.2015 executed by defendants
Ex.A4 is the term loan agreement dated 29.09.2015 executed by defendants
Ex.A5 is the Hypothecation agreement dated29.09.2015 executed by defendants
Ex.A6 is the legal notice dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff
Ex.A7 is the RP Receipt dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff
Ex.A8 is the statement of account dated 25.09.2018 of defendant loan account
Ex.A9 is the certificate of statement of account of defendant loan account
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
TUESDAY, THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
O.S.NO. 2151 OF 2018
Between:
Indian Bank, a Nationalized Bank constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, V of 1970 having its Head Office at No.66, Royapettah, Chennai & among other places A branch at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. Represented by it’s A.G.M.
...Plaintiff
And
Smt.Gattu Revathi W/o Sri Gattu Srinivas, Age: Major, Occ. :Business, R/o H.No.1-2-608/337, Mothilal Nehru Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad – 45.
...Defendant
This suit coming on 04.02.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Rakesh Kumar Heda, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 read with
Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the defendant to pay the suit amount i.e. Rs.43,794.63Ps/- with future interest @ 10.70% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of repayment in full.
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The defendant submitted loan application dt.28-09-2015 for sanctioning the loan to do the business and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.50,000/- vide sanction letter
Page. 2 O.S.NO. 2151
OF 2018 dt.28-09-2015 as per the sanction letter, the defendant was required to repay the loan amount in 36 EMIs together with interest and the
Defendant executed an Term Loan Agreement, Agreement of
Hypothecation of movables, Demand pro note for Rs. 50,000/and other necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank on 28-09-2015 the Defendant agreed to repay the loan amount, as above, with interest @ 11.20% p.a. with monthly rents and also at the revised rates and rents as per the guidelines of RBI/norms of the plaintiff bank. Further, the defendant agreed for the plaintiff bank charging penal interest @ 2% p.a. over and above the above rate of interest in the event of default in repayment of the loan amount/instalments.
3.Plaintiff submits that the Defendant committed defaulted in repayment of loan installments which is reflected in the Statement of
Account and plaintiff bank made several requests and demands to the defendant to liquidate the loan dues but in vain thereafter, plaintiff bank got issued legal notice dt.18-09-2018 to the defendant calling upon her to settle the loan account. The acknowledgment or returned envelope not yet received. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the amount outstanding in the above loan account of the defendant the defendant is due and liable to pay the sum of Rs.37,011.48ps/-towards the principal and
Rs.6,783.15ps/- towards the interest i.e. total amounting to
Rs.43,794.63ps./-outstanding as on 25-09-2018.
4.The interest charged by the plaintiff bank is reasonable and in accordance with the guidelines of RBI and there is contract between the parties. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled to claim the contractual rate of interest during pendente lite also. Further, contractual rate of interest is also saved under section 21-A of
Page. 3 O.S.NO. 2151
OF 2018
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the plaintiff has a right to charge the interest at the rate on the loan account at the current rate as per the directions of RBI issued from time to time.
5.Though served with summons the defendant did not choose to appear before the court and remained exparte.
6.On behalf of the plaintiff Bank its Senior Manager is examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9.
7.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of
suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?
8.The Senior Manager of the plaintiff Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the loan application dated 28.09.2015 submitted by defendant. Ex.A2 is the sanction ticket dated 28.09.2015 submitted by plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the DP Note dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant. Ex.A4 is the term loan agreement
dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant. Ex.A5 is the Hypothecation
agreement dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendant. Ex.A6. Is the legal notice dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the RP
Receipt dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff. Ex.A8 is the statement of account dated 25.09.2018 of defendant loan account.
Ex.A9 is the certificate of statement of account of defendant loan account.
Page. 4 O.S.NO.
2151 OF 2018 9.As per the evidence of Pw1, the defendant has submitted Loan
Application dated 28.09.2015 under ExA1 for sanction of the loan from the plaintiff Bank for to do the business and same was sanctioned
Rs.50,000/- to the defendant dated 28.09.2015 under ExA2 and the defendant(Borrower) accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in
ExA2 i.e., sanction ticket. For repayment of loan together with interest and defendant executed demand promissory note dated 29.09.2015 under ExA3 and term loan agreement under ExA4 in favour of plaintiff Bank. And also the defendant executed agreement of hypothecation of movables in favour of plaintiff Bank as security under Ex A5.
10. Ex A8 is the statement of account of defendant dated 25-09-18 it is clear that the plaintiff Bank maintained statement of account in the name of defendant in which it is clearly reflects that the payment made by the defendant and committed default in repayment of loan installments and the defendant not followed the schedule of installments. The plaintiff Bank demanded the defendant for repayment of due loan amount and issued legal notice dated 18-09-18 under Ex A6.
11. From the evidence of PW1 and plaint averments the defendant is due and liable to pay the sum of Rs.37,011.48Ps/- towards the principle and Rs.6,783.15 Ps/- towards the interest i.e., total amounting to Rs.43,794.63Ps./- outstanding as on 25-09-2018.
12. From the evidence of PW1 and from the ExA1 to A9 it is clear that the defendant availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff Bank and agreed the terms and conditions for repayment and not followed the repayment schedule and became default.
Page. 5 O.S.NO. 2151
OF 2018
13. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff Bank is unchallenged and the defendant did not choose to appear before the court, hence the plaintiff Bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant accordingly point is answered.
In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 43,794.63Ps/-( Rupees forty three thousand seven hundred and ninety four rupees and sixty three paise only) together with interest thereon @ 10.70% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on the principle amount 37,001.48Ps/- and further interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 12 th day of February, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
Page. 6 O.S.NO.
2151 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1:G.ADINARAYANA
EXPARTE
(Senior Manager)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 is the loan application dated 28.09.2015 submitted by defendant
Ex.A2 is the sanction ticket dated 28.09.2015 submitted by plaintiff
Ex.A3 is the DP Note dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendants
Ex.A4 is the term loan agreement dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendants
Ex.A5 is the Hypothecation agreement dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendants
Ex.A6 is the legal notice dated 18.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff
Ex.A7 is the RP Receipt dated 28.09.2018 got issued by plaintiff
Ex.A8 is the statement of account dated 25.09.2018 of defendant loan account
Ex.A9 is the certificate of statement of account of defendant loan account
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SRI P. RAVINDER, B.A., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
THURSDAY, THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
O.S.NO.447 OF 2017
Between:
The State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955, (23 of 1955) and being the successor of State Bank of Hyderabad, Under the acquisition of State Bank of Hyderabad Order, 2017 passed by the Central Government under Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) through the Asst. General Manager having their branch
at Osmania University Branch, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff
(Amended as per orders in IA.No.94 of 2017 in OS.No.447 of 2017 dated 06.07.2017)
And
Mohd. Moinuddin, aged major, Occ : Auto Driver, R/o H.No.8-4-369/171 & 186,
Banjaranagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad – 18. ...Defendant
This suit coming on 04.01.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. S. Indira Devi, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 read with
Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of
Rs.1,19,099/- from the defendant with subsequent interest @ 11.80% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the suit to till realization.
2.The averments of the plaint are in brief: The application of the defendant dated 27.06.2013 seeking term loan of Rs.1,47,000/- for purchase of Auto under CGTMS scheme was received by the plaintiff and the said application was considered and term loan of Rs.1,47,000/- was sanctioned (vide account No.62293181477) on 25.07.2013, the defendant agreed to all the terms and conditions of the sanction and the defendant agreed to all the terms of sanction and executed and delivered the loan documents to one of the plaintiffs division i.e., SMECC, Secunderabad, on 25.07.2013. Letter of arrangement (SME-3) executed by the defendant.
The defendant agreed to repay the term loan with interest @ 2.05% above
SBHBR with a minimum of 12.25% per annum with monthly rests in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,400/- per month, commencing from
August, 2013 and ending with July, 2018. Agreement of loan-cum- hypothecation (SME-2) for Rs.1,47,000/- by this document the defendant agreed to all the above stated terms of repayment, so also hypothecated the auto in favour of the plaintiff with registration No.AP 09 TB 1659. On the request and for the convenience of the defendant the account was allotted to plaintiffs Branch at Yousufguda, i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant fully availed the term loan of Rs.1,47,000/-, but failed to keep up the repayment schedule, except for certain payments. The last payment of
Rs.3,400/- was received into the loan account on 01.11.2015, After that the account turned into NPA, the same was transferred to plaintiff, which is specialized in recovery of Stressed Account dues of present nature.
3.The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 24.10.2016 calling the defendant to pay the dues, the said legal notice was returned with endorsement “no such person”. As per the prudent norms contemplated by
RBI the interest component should not be loaded into the account, inadvertently loading took place as such a sum of Rs.7,947/- was given credit on 30.06.2016. Such a classification is not for the benefit of the defendant. However, the said sum is included in the outstanding dues at the time of filing of suit. The defendant is due and payable the entire outstanding sum of Rs.1,19,099/- as on 16.12.2016. Hence, the suit.
4.Though served with summons through substituted service, the defendant did not choose to appear before the Court. Hence, he was set exparte.
5.On behalf of the plaintiff Bank its Chief Manager is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.
6.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.
Now the point for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for the recovery of suit
amount from the defendant as prayed for?
7.The Chief Manager of the plaintiff Bank has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1 reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the term loan application dated 27.06.2013,
Ex.A2 is the sanction letter with annexures dated 25.07.2013 by the defendant, Ex.A3 is the letter of arrangement dated 25.07.2013, Ex.A4 is the agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 25.07.2013, Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dated 24.10.2016, Ex.A6 is the returned legal notice and acknowledgment card dated 25.10.2016 and Ex.A7 is the extract of statement of account No.62293181477 with certificate dated 16.12.2016.
In the result,
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of January, 2019.
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: P. Durga Prasad EXPARTE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1:Term loan application dated 27.06.2013.
Ex.A2:Sanction letter with annexures dated 25.07.2013 by the defendant.
Ex.A3:Letter of arrangement dated 25.07.2013.
Ex.A4:Agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 25.07.2013.
Ex.A5:Office copy of legal notice dated 24.10.2016.
Ex.A6:Returned legal notice and acknowledgment card dated 25.10.2016.
Ex.A7:Extract of statement of account No 62293181477 with certificate
dated 16.12.2016.
FOR DEFENDANT:NIL
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD