Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Surender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
M/S. Phoenix Arc Private Limited – Respondent
RFA No.942 of 2017
Decided On : 10-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate
The validity of an assignment deed and the admissibility of a statement of account certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act as proof of the amount due.
Headnote:
Loan Agreement - Recovery of Loan - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 2A of Banker Book Evidence Act - Section 65-B of Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of a loan amount. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, claiming lack of privity of contract and disputing the validity of the assignment deed. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found privity of contract between the parties and upheld the validity of the assignment deed. It also accepted the statement of account certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act as proof of the amount due, and decreed the suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of moneys.
Issues: Privity of contract, validity of assignment deed, repayment of loan amount, admissibility of statement of account
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the validity of the assignment deed and accepted the statement of account certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act as admissible evidence of the amount due, rejecting the appellant/defendant's arguments to the contrary.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant/defendant was ordered to pay costs of Rs.25,000 within six weeks.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. No.40462/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.40463/2017 (for condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 65 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No.942/2017
3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.3.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.9,33,833.84/- along with interest at 9% per annum. Respondent/defendant/asset reconstruction company was the assignee of the creditor and the appellant/defendant was the borrower who had failed to repay the loan amount.
4. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/defendant approached the erstwhile the Royal Bank of Scotland which was successor of ABN Amro Bank for grant of a personal loan and the appellant/defendant was granted personal loan on 18.7.2008 of an amount of Rs.7,98,589/- repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs.20,492/-. It was pleaded that the appellant/defendant failed to repay the amount and adhere to financial discipline and therefore the amount as claimed has become due from the appellant/defendant. It was further pleaded that in terms of notification of Reserve Bank of India, ABN AMRO Bank was permitted to be substituted as the Royal Bank of Scotland N.V in the second schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Royal Bank of Scotland vide a deed of assignment dated 30.4.2012 assigned the loan amounts/debts to the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff therefore was entitled to the suit amount inasmuch as the appellant/defendant failed to pay the same in spite of the final demand notice dated 22.1.2014.
5. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and raised various objections. It was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had no privity of contract with the appellant/defendant. It was also pleaded that the assignment deed relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff dated 30.4.2012 was not duly registered and hence could not be relied upon. On merits, the appellant/defendant stated that the signatures of the appellant/defendant on the loaning documents were of the appellant/defendant, but, the signatures were taken on blank papers and no consideration was ever passed to the appellant/defendant from the Royal Bank of Scotland.
6. After pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-
“(i). Whether plaintiff has locus standi to file present suit? OPP
(ii). Whether suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPP
(iii). Whether present suit is within limitation? OPP
(iv). Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPP
(v). Whether defendant had paid the loan amount as alleged? OPD
(vi). Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed? OPP
(vii). Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest over the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(viii). Relief.”
7. Respondent/plaintiff proved its case through PW-1 Sh. Hari Om and who was the duly authorized person of the respondent/plaintiff. The documents which are proved by the respondent/plaintiff are as under:-
Sl. No. No. of Exhibits Details of Documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Photocopy of certificate issued by RBI on 19.03.2010
2. Ex.PW1/B Plaint
3. Ex.PW1/C Attested photocopy of Board Resolution
4. Ex.PW1/D Photocopy of official Gazatted of India
5. Ex.PW1/E1 Loan Application
6. Ex.PW1/E2 Loan Agreement
6. Ex.PW1/E3 Promisory Note
7. Ex.PW1/F Photocopy of deed of assignment dated 30.04.2012
8. Ex.PW1/G1 Copy of legal notice dated 22.01.2014
9. Ex.PW1/G2 Postal receipt dated 23.01.2014
10. Ex.PW1/F (Colly) Copy of statement of Ledger Account and calculation of due amount along with Certificate under Section 2A of Ban
