Smt T Jaya Lakshmi

>> 1 << OS 1424/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 7 th day of April, 2017.

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jaya Lakhsmi, B.Com., M.L.,

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No.1424/2014

Between:

Smt.G.Swaroopa Rani W/o late G.Srinivasa Rao, A/a 54yrs. Occ: Housewife, Rep.by her GPA Holder, G.Manik Prabhu S/o late G.Srinivasa Rao, A/a 35yrs. Occ: Business, Both R/o H.No.1-29/3, Prabhathnagar,

Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad... Plaintiff

A n d

Dr.P.Yoshoda D/o P.Nagulaiah, A/a 39yrs. Occ: Doctor, R/o Flat No.505, Aparna Shiva Kailash Apartment, Opp.Water Tank, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. O/o Flat No.302, 3rd floor, Katuru Nivas, MCH No.8-3-971, Srinagar Colony Main road,

Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad... Defendant

This suit coming on 3-4-2017 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri Veera Prasada Chary, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri G.Shankar, Advocate for defendant, and the matter having been heard and stoodover for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction and v a cant possession of the suit schedule property bearing Flat No.302,

>> 2 << OS 1424/2014

H.No.8-3-971, 3rd floor, Katuru Nivas, Srinagar Colony main road,

Near HDFC Bank, Hyderabad; and to direct the defendant to pay arrears of rent due from May 2014 to October 2014 @ Rs.26,000/- x 6 months in total of Rs.1,56,000/- and damages for illegal occupancy of the premises after termination of the tenancy i.e.

from 20-8-2014 and to direct the defendant to pay the total amount of Rs.1.56 lakhs to the plaintiff; and for costs of the suit.

2..The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she had given

GPA to her son G.Pranik Prabhu and the defendant appro a ched the husband of the plaintiff and requested for leasing out the schedule property on monthly basis for running hospital business and on seeing the dire necessity of the defendant, he agreed to let out the premises on a monthly y rent of Rs.26,000/- p.m. from 1-1- 15 with agreed period of 11 months but unfortunately he was passed away and immediately after the death of plaintiff's husband, the entire premises was looked after by her son and after the demise of the husband of the plaintiff, the defendant appro a ched the son of the plaintiff, who is the GPA Holder to take care of the property and requested him to let out the premises as it was

>> 3 << OS 1424/2014

agreed by his father, he agreed to let out the premises and entered into lease agreement on 16-3-14 and signed the prepared lease agreement brought by the defendant, when they were in sorrow mood and not aware of the contents of the lease agreement, and after passing of two months, the defendant not paying the rents to plaintiff's son though he demanded and she also postponed on the pretext that she has already started another business at

Dilshuknagar Main Road, as such, huge investments were invested andsheis f a cing the financial troubles and promised to adjust the rent amount andshewill v a cate the premises by 20-8-14 itself and also given an undertaking on 9-7-14 but surprisingly the plaintiff received summons from the

II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS 1632/2014 for injunction without paying proper rents, and from May 2014 onwards the defendant is not paying the rents, and she had given theundertakingfor v a cating the premises and also not paid the rents though the son of

>> 4 << OS 1424/2014

the plaintiff demanded and the defendant is a willful and chronic defaulter and liable to pay the rents from May 2014 and the suit premisesisalsorequiredforpersonal a ccommodation of the son of the plaintiff who is unemployed and willing to establish his business in the premises and hence, the suit.

3..A written statement is filed by the defendant by admitting the jural relationship and monthly rent of Rs.26,000/- and the lease agreementbutdeniedthe appro a ch of the husband of the plaintiff during his lifetime and contended that, the defendant had paid Rs.78,000/- towards interest free deposit of rent which shall be payable at the time of v a cating the premises and the lease is for a period of five years with a condition to enhance the rent @ 10% for every 11 months and in pursuance of the agreement, the defendant entered into the premises in the month of March 2014 and the plaintiff also taken two cheques for security at the time of entering into the lease agreement, and is regularly paying the rents but the plaintiff

>> 5 << OS 1424/2014

despite of the request made by the defendant declined to issue receipts\, and while the matter stood thus, on 5-9-14 the defendant was at shock by seeing the To-Let board to the schedule property and immediately, she questioned the plaintiff and they informed that the schedule property will fetch more than Rs.35,000/- p.m.

andtherefore,to v a cate the premises within 15 days and as a result of which several people along with the plaintiff and her son came to the schedule property during the working hours and inspecting it for lease which caused very much inconvenience and nuisance and on 8-9-14 once again when the defendant requested the plaintiff to remove the To-

Let board as the lease period is subsisting and instead of that the plaintiff and her son quarreled and created lot of nuisance and on 10-9-14, the plaintiff and her two sons including some anti social elements entered into the clinic at 7 p.m. and abused the defendant in filthy language and threatened they will dispose of her on 15-9- 14ifshefailedto v a catethepremisesandimmediatelyshe appro a

>> 6 << OS 1424/2014

chedthepolicebuttheyadvisedto appro a ch the court as it is a civil nature and in view of the above circumstances, the defendant was constrained to file a suit in OS 1632/2014 on the tile of the II Jr.Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, seeking permanent injunction which is pending adjudication, and pursuant to the filing of the above suit, this suit was filed without valid GPA and without giving notice as per the provisions of Sec.106 of T.P.Act by setting up a false case, hence, the suit may be dismissed.

4..Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant as prayed for?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for?

iii) To what relief?

5..During the course of trial the GPA Holder of plaintiff is examined as PW1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On the other hand, the defendant got examined herself as DW1 and got marked

Exs.B1 & B2.

6..Heard both sides and perused the entire material pl 7..ISSUE NO.1: In order to prove this issue, the GPA Holder of

>> 7 << OS 1424/2014

plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The juralrelationshipisanadmitted f a ct. It was disputed by the plaintiff that they are not aware of the lease deed contents as it was prepared and brought by defendant.

8..The defendant contended that the suit itself is not maintainable as the suit was not filed without issuance of the notice under Sec.106 of TP Act. The plaintiff averred that they were not aware of the terms of the lease. Even assuming that as per the terms of lease, the suit was filed within the lease period without giving a notice but the letter issued by the defendant was marked as Ex.A4 in the cross examination of PW1 which shows thatthedefendantundertakingthatshewill v a cate the premises on 20-8-2014. DW1 in her cross examination denied the Ex.A4. Ex.A4 was not marked in the chief examination it was marked in the cross examination and moreover DW1 in her cross examination admitted the Ex.B2 receipt which is in her handwriting and she also stated that she has no objection to send the Ex.A4 and Ex,.B2 to the Handwriting expert. When the court compares the handwriting of Ex.B2 & A4 the handwriting in Ex.A4 & B2 are similar to that. And moreover, the defendant in the

>> 8 << OS 1424/2014

written statement contended that she had issued two cheques towards security at the time of entering into the lease, but one of the cheque was dishonoured and basing on the dishonouring of the cheque, and a criminal case was filed in CC No.238/15 and the same was compromised, and Ex.B2 was issued in that compromise. When there was no legally valid debt and the cheque was issued for security purpose why the defendant was compromised and itself shows her attitude. Therefore, under the above discussion, it was clear that Ex.A4 was issued by defendant andshefailedto v a cate the premises and so that the suit was filed without issuance of the notice under Sec.106 of T.P.Act.

9..In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant was also cross examined at length. In the cross examination she admitted that she had taken the premises for running the hospital but she is using the premises for residence as well as the hospital business. In the cross examination, she also admitted that she will v a cate the premises and handover the keys. This admission strengthens the Ex.A4 though she denied the execution of Ex.A4.

10..The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit

>> 9 << OS 1424/2014

itself is not maintainable and the evidence given by PW1 should not be taken into consideration in the light of the ratio given in the following two cases:

I) Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and Others, reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439.

11..In that the suit was filed by the plaintiff bank before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal. In the recovery proceedings against the husbands of the appellants wives, the appellants had filed objectionsagainstthe att a chment of the house property and the Supreme court remanded the matter and held that the burden of proving the appellants have a share in the property will be on the appellants, it was obligatory on the appellants to have entered into the witness box and discharge the burden by themselves, to show that whether they are having independent source of income and the Power of

Attorney holder does not have the personal knowledge of the matter of the appellants, and therefore he can neither depose on his personal knowledge nor can he be cross examined on those f a cts which are to the personal knowledge of the principal. Here in the present case, the GPA Holder who is none other than the son

>> 10 << OS 1424/2014

of the landlord who is looking after the affairs of the schedule property and he gave the evidence for the principal in respect of the lease premises was looking after by him.

II) Dr.Deepak Sharma Vs. Smt.Vineetha Sharma reported in AIR 2008 Calcutta 55.

12.. It is a case filed for divorce for mutual consent under Special

Marriage Act where relaxation of six moths period was sought.

The joint petition was supported by an affidavit. So far as the husband is concerned, his affidavit was affirmed by the Power of

Attorney Holder on his behalf and the trial judge was reject the application as ingredients of Sec.28(2) of the Special Marriage Act wasnotfulfilled,particularlyinviewofthe f a ct that in the absence of one of the parties to the marriage, court cannot presume that the absentee party has not withheld his earlier consent. As per the provisions of Or.3 R1 & 2 the power to deposeonbehalfofand/orin pl a ce of principal extends only to depositions in respect of “ a cts” done by Power of Attorney Holder in exercise of power granted by the Instrument. PW1 herein clearly and categorically

>> 11 << OS 1424/2014

stated in his cross examination about the looking after the affairs ofthescheduleproperty.The f a cts and circumstances in the above case and the present suit are different and so that the above ratio given under the fnot applicable to the present case.

Hence the argument raised by the learned counsel for the defendant is not sustainable.

13..In the totality of the circumstances and in view of the observations made supra, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff discharged the initial burden for eviction of the defendant and the defendant failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff and failed to prove that in the absence of Sec.106 of T.P.Act notice the suit is not maintainable.

Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

14..ISSUE NO.2: whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for?

As per the case of the plaintiff the defendant is in arrears of rent since May 2014. In order to prove the same the GPA Holder of plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he deposed as per the plaint pleadings, and also cross examined DW1 at length. In the cross examination, she admitted that she had not paid the rents 8-4-2016 and also stated that she has not deposited or paid any rent after

>> 12 << OS 1424/2014

filing of the petition for recovery of rents. In the cross examination, she stated that under the guise of the injunction order,shehasnotpaidtherentsandnot v a cated the premises, and she also stated that she will pay the rents.

But in the cross examination a suggestion was given that she paid the rents September 2014 till the institution of the suit. The suggestion itself establishes that the defendant paid the rents till the month of September 2014, though she stated that she had not paid the rents for April 2015 but giving of the suggestion i.e. the rent was paid till September 2014 shows that the plaintiff is admitting that the defendant paid the rent till the month of

September 2015, and so that the plaintiff is not entitled for the rents till the month of September 2016 and entitled only the rent for the month of October 2014 i.e. Rs.26,000/- only and entitled for the damages for the occupancy of the schedule premises from

October 2014 as per the suggestion of the plaintiff they received the rent till September 2014.

Hence, this issue is answered.

15..ISSUE NO.3: To what relief?

In view of the findings given on Issue No.1 & 2, the suit has to be decreed partly and partly dismissed.

In the result, the suit is decreed partly with costs and the

>> 13 << OS 1424/2014

defendantisdirectedto v a cate the premises within two months from the date of the judgment and to pay October 2014 rent of Rs.26,000/- and damages @ Rs.26,000/- from November 2014 onwards till the date of v

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of April, 2017.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

Plaintiff side: Defendant side:

PW1: G.Manik Prabhu DW1: Dr.P.Yoshoda

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1Copy of lease agreement.

Ex.A2Original General Power of Attorney.

Ex.A3Certified copy of the decree and judgment in OS 1632 of 2014 on the file of the II Jr.Civil Judge, CCC,

Hyderabad, including the deposition of PW1 & DW1.

Ex.A4Xerox copy of the letter.

>> 14 << OS 1424/2014

Documents marked for defendant:

Ex.B1Deposition of chief examination affidavit of DW1 herein in OS 1632/2014 on the file of the II Jr.Civil Judge, CCC,

Hyderabad, as PW1.

Ex.B2Receipt issued by the PW1.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

>> 1 << OS 458/2012

 IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: 

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 6 th day of January 2016.

 PRESENT: Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, B.Com., M.L.,

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No.458/2012

Between:

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB)

Nampally, Hyderabad, represented by its Manager. .. Plaintiff

A n d 

1. Smt.S.Bindu Madhavi

2. S.Saketh Ram

3. S.Sarath Chandra .. Defendants

This suit coming on 30­11­15 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri G.Prabhakar Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants set exparte and the matter having been heard and stoodover for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,68,231/­ with future interest and costs of the suit.

2..The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant No.1 is the sole proprietrix carrying on the business in manufacturing of paper­ plates, cups etc., under the name & style of M/s Aparna Industries 

>> 2 << OS 458/2012

formerly (Aparna Paper Industries)and she approached the State Bank of 

India, Main Branch, Koti, Hyderabad, and requested for sanction of cash credit(hypothecation) loan for carrying on the said business. 

Accordingly, the said bank sanctioned cash credit(hypothecation) loan of 

Rs.4 lakhs to D1 as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of arrangement dt.29­11­2005 which was accepted by the defendant 

No.1 and her husband S.Srinivasa Rao.

To secure due repayment of the said cash credit(hypothecation) loan of Rs.4 lakhs on 29­11­2005 D1 executed the agreement of loan­ cum­hypothecation in favour of plaintiff bank. The husband of D1 and father of D2 & D3 stood as guarantor for the said loan amount together with interest on 29­11­20005 and executed guarantee agreement. The defendant No.1 agreed to repay the said term loan amount with interest @ 11.75% p.a. subject to revision from time to time.

The defendant No.1 availed the cash credit(hypothecation) loan of 

Rs.4 lakhs vide cash credit(hypothecation) loan account 

No.10811908461 and utilized the loan amount for her business. After availing the said loan on further request of D1 for enhancement of the said loan, the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Koti, Hyderabad, enhanced the said cash credit(hypothecation) loan from Rs.4 lakhs to 

Rs.8 lakhs as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of 

>> 3 << OS 458/2012

arrangement dt.3­1­2007 and D1 and her husband accepted the terms & conditions, and to secure the enhanced loan of Rs.8 lakhs, D1 executed agreement of loan­cum­hypothecation in favour of plaintiff bank, and the husband of the D1 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement dt.4­1­2007. In terms of the loan agreements, all the machinery, stocks, paper­plates, cups, raw­materials, finished and semi­ finished, book­debts, etc., of D1 stands hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff­bank as security for the due repayment of the said loan amount together with interest.

After availing the said loan, the defendant No.1 committed default in operating the loan account and failed to repay the loan amount and violated the terms of loan agreements. The defendant also failed to pay the interest accrued to the loan account from time to time. The D1 and her husband executed revival letter on 3­4­2008 acknowledging their liability under the loan documents. As the defendant committed default in discharging the debt, the loan amount of the defendant was classified as Non­performing Asset and the same has been transferred to the plaintiff bank herein for further action on administrative reasons. 

Further, the plaintiff­bank came to know that the guarantor and husband of D1 expired leaving behind his wife D1 and D2 & D3 as his legal heirs.

As the defendants failed to repay the loan amount together with interest, 

>> 4 << OS 458/2012

the plaintiff bank issued legal notice dt.21­2­2012 to the defendants but the said legal notice was returned unserved. Thus, the defendant is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,68,231/­ which includes the interest from 1­1­2011 to till the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the suit.

3..Summons served on defendants by way of publication but the defendants called absent, as such, they were set ex parte.

4..In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its 

Asst.Manager/City Case Officer as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 and reported closure of evidence.

5..Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6..Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim as prayed for?

P O I N T: In order to prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined 7..

its Manager, as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. The evidence of 

PW1 is on the same lines of plaint. As per the evidence of PW1, the defendant No.1 approached the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Koti, 

Hyderabad, for sanction of cash credit(hypothecation) loan for carrying on business. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank sanctioned cash credit(hypothecation) loan of Rs.4 lakhs to D1 as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of arrangement dt.29­11­2005 under 

Ex.A1 which was accepted by the defendant No.1 and her husband 

>> 5 << OS 458/2012

S.Srinivasa Rao, and the defendant while availing the loan executed necessary documents such as Ex.A2 agreement of loan­cum­ hypothecation and the defendant No.2 executed guarantee agreement dt.16­3­06 Ex.A3 and agreed to pay the loan amount together with interest and after availing the loan, the defendant committed default in payment of installments and as the defendant No.1 failed to pay the loan installments, her account has been classified as NPA by State Bank of 

India, Main Branch, Koti, Hyderabad, and transferred to the plaintiff­ bank for further action; and as the defendant failed to repay the outstanding loan amount together with interest, the plaintiff­bank got issued Ex.A8 & A12 legal notices calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding due amount; and inspite of receipt of legal notice, as the defendant failed to pay the amount, they filed the present suit; and 

Ex.A17 statement of account clearly goes to show that the defendants committed default in payment of installments, and the guarantor and husband of D1 expired leaving behind his wife D1 and D2 & D3 as his legal heirs.

8..The evidence of PW1 stood unchallenged as the defendants failed to make appearance to rebut the evidence of PW1. Therefore, on perusal of evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A17, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff­bank proved the suit claim against the defendants and as such, 

>> 6 << OS 458/2012

the plaintiff­bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, I answer this point in favour of the plaintiff­bank.

9..In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs.6,68,231/­ against the defendants, together with costs and interest @ 14% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree to till its complete realisation on principal sum of Rs.8 lakhs; and the same has to be realized from the sale of the hypothecated property which is described in the plaint schedule property, and thereafter against the D1 to D3 for the unrealized amount after appropriating the sale proceeds of hypothecated property as shown in plaint schedule.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of January 2016.

 II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

PW1: G.Rajender For defendants: None.

Documents marked for plaintiff:

>> 7 << OS 458/2012

Ex.A1Letter of Arrangement dt.29­11­2005.

Ex.A2 Agreement of loan­cum­hypothecation dt.29­11­2005.

Ex.A3Guarantee agreement dt.29­11­2005.

Ex.A4Letter of Arrangement dt.3­2­2007.

Ex.A5Agreement of loan­cum­hypothecation dt.4­1­2007.

Ex.A6Guarantee agreement dt.4­1­2007.

Ex.A7Revival letter dt.3­4­2008.

Ex.A8Office copy of legal notice dt.28­10­2011.

Ex.A9Returned Postal cover of D1.

Ex.A10Returned Postal cover of D1.

Ex.A11 Returned Postal cover of husband of D1.

Ex.A12Office copy of legal notice dt.21­2­12.

Ex.A13Returned Postal cover of D1.

Ex.A14Returned Postal cover of D1.

Ex.A15Returned Postal cover of D2.

Ex.A16Returned Postal cover of D3.

Ex.A17True extract of statement of cash credit(hypothecation) loan account dt.9­3­2012.

Documents marked for defendant: Nil.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

>> 1 << OS 1792/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 11 th day of April, 2017.

PRESENT: SMT. T. JAYA LAKSHMI,

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No.1792/2014

Between:

M/s Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Plot No.2, Maithri Vihar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad -38. Rep.by its Dy.Manager, H.R.& Legal, Sri N.Rajasekara Reddy, S/o N.Sadakarami Reddy,

Aged about 56yrs. .. Plaintiff

A n d

1. Cheppali Shaik Sohail S/o C.S.Maqbul Hussain, D.No.4/727, Venkateswarlu peta, Proddutur, Kadapa Dist. 516 360.

2. Cheppali Shaik Sameena, W/o C.S.Maqbul Hussain, D.No.4/727, Venkateswarlu peta, Proddutur, Kadapa Dist. 516 360.

3. Shaik Asma Anjum, D/o C.S.Maqbul Hussain, D.No.4/727, Venkateswarlu peta,

Proddutur, Kadapa Dist. 516 360.. Defendants

(Suit against D3 is dismissed as per Memo dt.31-3-17)

This suit coming on 7-4-2017 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 set ex parte, and suit against D3 is dismissed, and the matter having been heard and stoodover for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- together with costs and interest.

>> 2 << OS 1792/2014

2..The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in Pharmaceutical/Pharma Research/manufacturing related allied products etc., The plaintiff submitted that on the application made by defendant No.1, the plaintiff company has appointed the defendant No.1 as a Technical Asst. - Production Department, in

Unit VII(SEZ) located at Sy.Nos.411, 425, 434, 435 & 458 Green

Industrial Park, Polepally, Jadcharla Mandal, Mahabubnagar

District, T.S. vide appointment order dt.10-1-2014 and simultaneously defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of employment dt.10-1-2014 assuring due performance of the terms and conditions and as per the terms and conditions in the appointment order, the defendant No.1 agreed to serve the plaintiff for a minimum period of three years and as per Cl.5 of agreement of employment if the employee fails to complete the first two years, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs, if the employee fails to serve the third year, he shall pay to the employer a compensation of

Rs.1,20,000/- and if the remaining period is less than six months, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the defendant No.1 also furnished two sureties i.e. defendant No.2 & 3 who has executed surety agreement dt.10-1-2014 assuring the plaintiff-company that

D1 would serve the plaintiff for at least three years, and by virtue of the surety agreement, the defendant No.2&3 are also jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation, as per the terms &

>> 3 << OS 1792/2014

conditions of the surety-agreement.

The plaintiff further submitted that defendant No.1 not attending his duties from 28-5-2014 without any notice or information and therefore, he committed breach of employment agreement, therefore, defendants No.2 & 3 as sureties, are jointly and severally liable to compensate to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs. The plaintiff further submitted that they got issued a legal notice on 14-10-14 to all the defendants, calling upon them to pay the compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs and inspite of issuance of notice, the defendants failed to pay the compensation and as such, they filed the present suit.

3..Summons served on the defendants 1 & 2 through courier service. Defendants No.1&2 called absent, hence, set ex parte.

Suit is not pressed against defendant No.3. Hence, suit against D3 is dismissed.

4..During the course of enquiry, the plaintiff examined its

Dy.Manager-Legal as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and reported the closure of the evidence.

5..Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire material record placed before the court.

6..Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defendants as prayed?

7..P O I N T: In order to prove their case, the plaintiff

>> 4 << OS 1792/2014

examined its Dy.Manager-Legal as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A8. The evidence of PW1 is on the same lines of the plaint. As per the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff company appointed defendant

No.1 as Technical Asst. - Production Department, in Unit VII(SEZ) located at Sy.Nos.411, 425, 434, 435 & 458 Green Industrial Park,

Polepally, Jadcharla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, T.S. vide appointment order dt.10-1-2014 under Ex.A4, and that the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of employment dt.10-1- 2014 under Ex.A5, and also furnished sureties defendant No.2&3 who executed Ex.A6 security agreement and defendant No.1 agreed to work with the plaintiff for a period of minimum three years and if the employee fails to complete the first two years, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs, if the employee fails to serve the third year, he shall pay to the employer a compensation of

Rs.1,20,000/- and if the remaining period is less than six months, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-; and after joining, defendant

No.1 worked for sometime and from 28-5-2014 he absented from his duties without any notice or information and as the defendant

No.1 failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement of employment, they got issued legal notice dt.14-10-2014 under Ex.A7 calling upon the defendants to pay the compensation and inspite of issuance of notice as the defendants failed to pay the compensation, they filed the present suit.

8..As can be seen from Ex.A5, agreement of employment, at Cl.5

>> 5 << OS 1792/2014

it is categorically mentioned that defendant No.1 agreed to work with the plaintiff company for three years and if the employee fails to complete the first two years, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs, if the employee fails to complete the third year, he shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- and if the remaining period is less than six months, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the evidence of PW1, defendant No.1 joined with the plaintiff company on 10-1-2014 and absented from duty from 28-5-2014 As per the above said admissions, it goes to show that defendant No.1 worked for four months and as per Ex.A5 agreement of employment, if the employee fails to complete the first two years, he shall pay a sum of

Rs.1.50 lakhs, Admittedly, defendant No.1 worked for only four months, therefore, as per Ex.5 agreement employment, defendant

No.1& 2 are jointly liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff company.

9..Therefore, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to

A8, and in view of the terms of the agreement of employment under Ex.A5, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff company is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation from defendants.

Accordingly, I answer this point.

10.. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for

Rs.1,50,000/- against the defendants No.1 & 2 jointly and severally, with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the

>> 6 << OS 1792/2014

suit to till its complete realisation, on Rs.1,50,000/-. Suit against

D3 is dismissed, as not pressed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2017.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

PW1: N.Ratan Babu For defendants: None.

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1Certified copy of certificate of incorporation dt.26-12- 86.

Ex.A2Authorization letter dt.2-9-16.

Ex.A3Board Resolution extract dt.28-5-15.

Ex.A4Appointment order dt.10-1-2014.

Ex.A5Agreement of employment executed by D1 dt.10-1-2014.

Ex.A6Security agreement executed by D2 dt.10-1-2014.

Ex.A7Office copy of legal notice dt.14-10-14.

Ex.A8Returned postal covers (3nos).

Documents marked for defendants: Nil.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

>> 1 << OS 557/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 11 th day of April, 2017.

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jaya Lakhsmi, B.Com., M.L.,

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No.557/2014

Between:

T.Janaki Rama Rao S/o Satyanarayana, Age: 60yrs, Occ: Business, R/o 402, Anandi Nivas,

F-34,Madhura Nagar,Hyderabad. .. Plaintiff

A n d

Ch.Subba Rao S/o Parandhamaiah, Age: 54 Occ: Contractor, R/o Chintalapudi – 522 124,

Ponnur Mandal, Guntur Dist. A.P... Defendant

This suit coming on 6-4-2017 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri K.Suryanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiffand of Sri Ch.Gunaranjan, Advocate for defendant, and the matter having been heard and stoodover for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,84,758/- basing on the promissory note dt.31-3-2011 with future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation along with costs.

2..The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant are friends and known to each other for a long time and the defendant is a business man and he approached the plaintiff

>> 2 << OS 557/2014

with a request for a handloan to meet his business needs and in good faith and in view of the friendly relations, the defendant lent an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- by way of cash on 31-3-2011 and a sum of

Rs.60,000/- vide cheque No.415178 dt.14-5-11 through the joint account of the plaintiff and his wife at ICICI bank SR Nagar Branch,

Hyderabad, and in acknowledging the same the defendant executed the promissory note on 31-3-2011 agreeing to repay Rs.2.50 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. and thereafter the defendant did not repay the same even after repeated demands and at last he stopped contacting the plaintiff with an intention to cause loss and hardship s and finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 26-3-14 through registered post acknowledgment due but the plaintiff has not received the acknowledgment and he reserves his right to file acknowledgment at the time of trial and as there was no other option, the suit was filed.

3..A written statement is filed by the defendant by denying the execution of the suit promissory note and contended that it is a fabricated and forged one and the defendant borrowed only

Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and he immediately in the month of

January 2012 by way of cash repaid the same and the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and no proper court fee was paid and the suit is also barred by limitation, hence, the suit may be dismissed.

4..There is no element of settlement under Sec.89 CPC, between

>> 3 << OS 557/2014

the parties and hence, based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

i) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?

ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

iii) Whether the suit pro-note is true?

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

v) To what relief?

5..During the course of trial the plaintiff got examined himself as

PW1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On the other hand, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6..Heard both sides and perused the entire material placed

before the court.

7..ISSUE NO.1: Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?

In order to prove this issue the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 suit promissory note. In his chief examination he deposed as per his case. In Ex.A1 suit promissory note the residential address of the defendant is Chintalapudi,

Ponnur Mandal Guntur Dist. In the cross examination, the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A1 and he also admitted his close acquaintance with the plaintiff. Though the defendant contended that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit but no suggestion was given with that effect. Even assuming that it was

>> 4 << OS 557/2014

executed at Punnur jurisdiction but the cheque was issued at

Hyderabad, i.e. a part of transaction was taken place at Hyderabad.

Therefore, as per provisions of Sec.20 CPC, this court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

Hence, the issue is answered.

8..ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

The suit promissory note was marked as Ex.A1. It was dated 31-3-2011. The defendant in his pleading denied the execution of the suit promissory note and contended that it is fabricated one.

But in the cross examination he admitted his signature on Ex,.A1.

The suit was filed on 29-3-2014 i.e. within the period of three years limitation.

Hence, this issue is answered.

9..ISSUE NO.3: Whether the suit pronote is true?

The defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated and forged one but in the cross examination, he admitted the signature on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Once he admitted the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note until and unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that it was executed after taking the consideration, but the defendant did not try to rebut the presumption. The defendant also admitted receipt of legal notice and immediately he approached the plaintiff and he stated that he will return back the promissory note and so that he had not issued

>> 5 << OS 557/2014

any reply notice. In the pleadings the defendant contended that it is a forged one. But in the cross examination, he admitted his signature on Ex.A1 but failed to rebut the presumption under

Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Under these circumstance, it can be hold that the suit promissory note is true.

Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10..ISSUE NO.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

In view of the findings given on Issue No.1 to 3 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11..ISSUE NO.5: To what relief?

In view of the findings given on Issue No.1 to 4, the suit has to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, for Rs.3,84,758/- with future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation on principal sum of Rs.2,58,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of April, 2017.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

>> 6 << OS 557/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

Plaintiff side: Defendants side:

PW1: T.Janaki Rama Rao DW1: Ch.Subba Rao

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1Demand promissory note dt.31-3-2011.

Ex,A2Statement of account dt.14-5-2011.

Ex.A3Office copy of legal notice dt.26-3-2014.

Ex.A4Postal receipt dt.26-3-2014.

Documents marked for defendant: Nil.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

>> 1 << OS 1931/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: 

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 7 th day of January, 2016.

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jaya Lakhsmi, B.Com., M.L.,

 II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

O.S.No.1931/2014

Between:

State Bank of India, (RACPC) Himayathnagar,

Hyderabad... Plaintiff

A n d 

Nimma Srikanth Reddy.. Defendant

This suit coming on 7­1­2016 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri K.Harihar Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant set exparte, and the matter having been heard and stoodover for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.9,96,000/­ together with costs and interest, and for the sale of hypothecated car.

2..The brief averments of the plaint are that on 25­9­2013 the defendant approached State Bank of India, Amberpet Branch, with a request to obtain a term loan for purchase of Mahindra Scorpio VLX Car and they have sanctioned loan of Rs.10 lakhs to the defendant for purchase of the vehicle, and at the time of availing the loan, the 

>> 2 << OS 1931/2014

defendant agreed to abide by the conditions incorporated in the loan arrangement letter dt.27­9­2013 and signed the documents and he also executed necessary document i.e. loan­cum­hypothecation agreement dt.27­9­13 in favour of the plaintiff­bank and agreed to pay the loan amount in 84 equal monthly installments @ Rs.16887/­ along with the agreed interest. 

The plaintiff­bank further submitted that the defendant availed the loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs by execution of document at Amberpet 

Branch, through the Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC), 

Hyderabad, vide Term Loan A/c No.333334911440 and utilized the said amount for purchase of Mahindra Scorpio VLX Car and furnished the particulars of the said car and certificate of temporary registration; and after availing the loan, the defendant remitted only few installments and committed default in repaying the balance outstanding amount and as such the loan became Non­performing Assets (NPA) and as the defendant committed default in discharging the loan amount, the plaintiff­bank filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.9,96,000/­ which is outstanding amount as on the date of filing of the suit and prayed to decree the suit.

3..Summons served on defendant by way of publication but the defendant called absent, as such, he was set ex parte.

4..In order to prove its case, the plaintiff­bank examined its 

>> 3 << OS 1931/2014

Asst.Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and reported the closure of evidence.

5..Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6..Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff­bank is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

7..P O I N T: It is the contention of the PW1 that on 25­9­2013 the defendant approached State Bank of India, Amberpet Branch, with a request to obtain a term loan for purchase of Mahindra Scorpio VLX Car and they have sanctioned loan of Rs.10 lakhs vide sanction letter dt.26­ 9­2013 to the defendant for purchase of the vehicle, and at the time of availing the loan, the defendant agreed to abide by the conditions incorporated in loan arrangement letter dt.27­9­13 and signed the documents and he also executed loan­cum­hypothecation agreement in favour of the plaintiff­bank and agreed to pay the loan amount in 84 equal monthly installments @ Rs.16,887/­ along with the agreed interest.

8..The PW1 further contended that the defendant availed the loan amount of Rs.10 lakhs by execution of documents at Amberpet Branch, through the Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC), 

Hyderabad, vide Term Loan A/c No.333334911440 and utilized the said amount for purchase of Mahindra Scorpio VLX Car and after availing the loan, the defendant remitted only few installments and committed 

>> 4 << OS 1931/2014

default in repaying the balance amount and as such the loan became 

Non­performing Assets (NPA) and as the defendant committed default in discharging the loan amount, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.9,96,000/­ which is outstanding amount as on the date of filing of the suit and prayed to decree the suit.

9..In order to prove its case, the plaintiff­bank examined its 

Asst.Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 car loan application dt.25­9­2013, Ex.A2 is the sanction letter dt.26­9­13, Ex.A3 is the arrangement letter dt.27­9­13. Ex.A4 loan­cum­hypothication agreement dt.27­9­2013, proves the availment of the loan for the purpose of purchasing the car and hypothecation of the car by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the vehicle delivery letter dt.27­9­13, Ex.A6 is the temporary certificate of registration dt.19­10­13 and Ex.A7 is the statement of account. The evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 establishes the case of the plaintiff. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

10..In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs.9,96,000/­ against the defendant together with costs and interest @ 13.45% p.a. 

from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of the decree to till its complete realization on principal sum i.e. 

Rs.10 lakhs, and the same has to be realized from the sale of the hypothecated car which is described in the schedule annexed to the 

>> 5 << OS 1931/2014

plaint, and thereafter against the defendant for the unrealized amount after appropriating the sale proceeds of hypothecated car as shown in plaint schedule.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of January, 2016.

II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

PW1: S.Sri Rama Praveen For defendant: None.

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Car loan application dt.25­9­2013.

Ex.A2 Sanction letter dt.dt.26­9­2013.

Ex.A3 Arrangement letter dt.dt.27­9­2013 

Ex.A4 Loan­cum­hypothication agreement letter dt.27­9­2013.

Ex.A5 Vehicle delivery letter dt.27­9­2013. 

Ex.A6 Tempoary certificate of registration dt.19­10­2013.

Ex.A7Statement of account.

Documents marked for defendant: Nil.

 II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.