North East vs Smti Anura

North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Smti Anuradha Nandi

Case Details

Case Type	Title Suit
Registration Number	53/2014
Filing Date	27-05-2014
Registration Date	27-05-2014

First Hearing Date	27th June 2014
Decision Date	11th December 2017
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	5-Civil Judge No. 2;
Nature of Disposal	Uncontested--Decreed Exparte With Cost.;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd., ;

;

Respondent Name

Smti Anuradha Nandi, Sri Dhannjoy Das;

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

11-12-2017

Assam Schedule VII, Form 132 HrGH COURT FORM NO. (J) 2 HEADING OF ]UDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT/CASE Di*rict: CACHAR. K 1, 2. rN THE ORTGINA!- COUBT OF THE CrVrL JUDGE' NO-2 9ACHAR et SILCHAR Present :- A.M,Md.Mahiuddin. M.Sc; LL.B. Mond.ay. thq 77th dav of December. 2,077 North East Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Silchar Branch Plaintiff. Vercus Snrti, Anuradha Nandi and Sri. DhananioY Das. Defendant(s). Thissuit/casecomingonforfinalhearingon23'10'2017& the presence of flri. shantanu Nanda Bhattachariee Advocate for the plaintiff. and having stood for consideration to this llthday of Decemberr2Ol7, the Couft delivered the following judgment :- TYPED BY ME M, tlt ") 7.2077, in CivilJudge, No-2, Cac{r, Silchar. ^--r Ld|bfrw -9 $ Page 2 of 8 Title Suit No. 53 of 2O14 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, Sil Branch. Vs Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr, JUDGMENT 1. This is a suit filed by the North East Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Silchar Branch, Silchar against the defendants No-1. Smti. Anuradha Nandi and defendant No-2 Sri. Dhananjoy Das for recovery of Rs. 3,L3,4471- (Rupees three lac thifteen thousand four hundred forty seven) only on allegation that, the defendant no-l due to her financial constraint and for financial accommodation for meeting her required expenses to run her beauty parlor i.e. M/S Minakshi Beauty Parlour , approached the plaintiff bank for loan of Rs.5,OO,00O/- (Rupees five lac) only. The plaintiff bank after scrutinizing the loan application dated 21-6-2011 of the defendant no-1 and her potential to repay the same, sanctioned an amount of Rs.4r0OrO00/- (Rupees four lac) only vide sanction letter No. NEDF|/HO/MSE/WEDS- L23|70LL-L2 No. 2545 dated 22-O7-2OL1. Out of said Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lac) only, an amount of Rs. 2,75,OOOl- (Rupees two lac seventy five thousand) only was sanctioned as Rupee Term Loan (RTL) and the remaining Rs. 1r25rO0O/- (Rupees one lac twenty five tlrousand) only was sanctioned as Soft Loan (NEEDS). 2. The RTL was sanctioned with the terms and conditions that it should be repayable in 60 monthly installments with interest at the rate of LL.21o/o (eleven point two five percent) per annum with monthly rest along with cost, charges, loan processing fee etc. and the Soft Loan (NEEDS) was also repayable in the same term with interest at the rate of 01o/o (one percent) per annum with monthly rest along with cost, charges, loan processing fee etc. The moratorium period for repayment of both the loans was 06 months i.e. the loans were ultimately repayable in 54 monthly installments. The defendant No, 1 accepted all the terms and conditions governing the loans and the amoftization TYPED BY ME ,tm Civil Judge, No-2, Cachar, Silchar. ## q LW Page 3 of 8 Title Suit No. 53 of 2OL4 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, SilBranch. Vs Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr, 1 schedule i.e. loan repayment schedule by executing a letter in plaintiff's form called ACCEPTANCE LETTER dated 22-07'2OLL. 3. It has also been alleged that, the defendant No. 1 in order to secure her loan executed Composite Loan Agreement dated 26-07'2OLL whereby she hypothecated the stocks, book debts, equipments etc. in favour of the plaintiff bank and further lien her fixed deposit of Rs. 11001000/- (Rupees one lac) only held with Indian Overseas Bank, Silchar Branch under NC No. 146004511100561 and the plaintiff therefore has the first charge over them. Further, defendant No. 2 being a family friend of defendant No. 1 stood as the guarantor for repayment of the loan as collateral security by executing deed of guarantee dated 26-07-2OtL. Accordingly, the entire sanction amount was disbursed to the defendant No. 1. But, she failed to repay the same as per terms and conditions of the loan. 4. As a result, the loans became gradually irregular after sanction and the overdue installments rose to Rs. 11081000/- (Rupees one lac eight thousand) only as on 1$ March, 2013. So, the plaintiff issued a demand notice No. NEDF|/SIL/20L2-L3:434 dated O1-03-2013 asking the defendant No. 1 to clear the overdue balance of Rs. 11081000/- (Rupees one lac eight thousand) only within 15 days failing which the loans would be recalled. The said notice was received by the defendant No. 1. In response to the notice, the defendant No. 1 by his letter dated 15-03-2013 sought time for repayment of the loans, but she did not make any payment. So, the plaintift by its Recall Notice No. NEDF|/SIL/2012-13:459 dated 04-04-2OL3 recalled the loans and asked the defendant No. 1 to repay the entire outstanding balance of Rs. 31981550/' (Rupees three lac ninety eight thousand five hundred sixty) only standing in the accounts as on 04-04-2OL3 within 15 days. A copy of this Recall Notice was serued upon the defendant No. 2 also. The said notice was received by the defendant No. 1. But she did not make any payment. However, the defendant No. 2 did not respond. Finally, the plaintiff by its pleader's notice dated 20-08- TYPED BY ME ,## ''''#triffifll's char Title Suit No. 53 of 2014 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, Sil Branch. Vs Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr. Page 4 of 8 2013 demanded repayment of Rs. 3,98,5601- (Rupees three lac ninety eight thousand five hundred sixty) only. A copy of the notice was also served on the defendant No. 2. Both the defendants received the notices, but they did not repay the entire loans. 5. It is fufther alleged that, after adjustment of the lien Term Deposit, the debit balance in the NEEDS Account stood to Rs. 95,655/- (Rupees ninety five thousand six hundred fifty five) only as on 15-05-2014 and the debit balance in the RTL Account stood to Rs. 2,17,7921- (Rupees two lac seventeen thousand seven hundred ninety two) only as on 15-05-2014 totaling to Rs. 3,13,4471- (Rupees three lac thirteen thousand four hundred forty seven). The defendants have not paid the dues of Rs. 3,13,447l- (Rupees three lac thirteen thousand four hundred forty seven) till date. So, the plaintiff has been compelled to file this suit for realization of the above amount of Rs. 3,L3,447 l- (Rupees three lac thirteen thousand four hundred forty seven) only with up-to- date interest. 6. Summons were duly serued on the defendants, but the defendants did not contest the suit and accordingly, vide order dated 25-O2-2Ot6 and 15-03- 2OI7 the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte against them. 7. Now, the points to be determined here in this suit as to whether the defendanb were granted loan as claimed by the plaintiff bank and if sq whether the defendanB defaulted in making the repayment? It is further to be decided whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to get the decree as claimed in Para 16 of ib plaint? 8. Plaintiff side in order to prove its claim adduced evidence of its Branch Manager Sri. Ranendra Narayan Roy Choudhury, who proved its pleadings and exhibited 20 (twenty) numbers of documents and proved those by exhibiting necessary signatures including the Power of Attorney issued by the TYPED BY ME gffi* n.u.ua.ualiuddin, CivilJudge, No-2, Cachar, Sildar. ,l qI-,$E* _ _ TiUe Suit No. 53 of 2014 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, Sil Branchl_- Vs Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr. Page 5 of 8 plaintiff bank in his name. As none appeared from the defendant side to test the veracity of pw-1, his evidence remained unrebutted. 9. Perusar of documents such as Ext.-2 Loan apprication dated 21_06- 20ll, Ext'-S Original Recommendation the plaintiff bank dated z4-o6-2Dtt, Ext.-6 sanction Letter dated 22-or-2o].r, Ext.-7 Terms and conditions acceptance letter dated 22-ol-2or1, Ext.-g composite Loan Agreement dated 26'07'2011 and Ext.-12 and Ext.-14 the originar receipts issued by the defendant No. 1 after receiving the loan amount, Ext.-17 Recail Notice, Ext._ 18 the Lawyers Notice and Ext.-20 the certified copy of the statement of roan account I has been found that, the defendants were sanctioned loan as claimed by the plaintiff bank and they defaurted in repaying the same. It is further found from Ext.'20 Statement of Account that, the outstanding loan amount in the NEEDS Account was Rs. 951655/- (Rupees ninety five thousand six hundred fifty five) onry on r5-os-2014 and the debit barance in the RTL Account was Rs. 2,17,192l- (Rupees two rac seventeen thousand seven hundred ninety two) only as on rs-05-20r4 totaring to Rs. 3,rg,4471- (Rupees three rac thifteen thousand four hundred forty seven) only. 10. Further, from the documents the riabirity of the defendants No-2 as Guarantor and Surety has also been established. ORDER 11' From the discussions and decisions made above, it is clear that, the plaintiff bank has able to prove its case. Accordingly, the suit is decreed for Rs. 3,131447l- (Rupees three rac thirteen thousand four hundredfofi seven) only with interest @ 60lo per annum on it from the date of the suit till realization of the amount against the defendants joinfly and severally. It is accordingry decrared that, the moftgaged propefi mentioned in the TYPED BY ME ffin A.M,tttd.Mahiubdin,t''"'ffi'*'' Page 6 of 8 Title Suit No. 53 of 2014 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, SilBranch. Vs Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr. schedule is charged against the decreetal amount that includes the outstanding loan amount with libefty to the plaintiff bank to sale the same for satisfaction of the dues. It is further declared that, the plaintiff bank is entitled to get other relieves as claimed in Para 16 of the plaint. Accordingly, the defendants are hereby restrained from selling or disposing of the hypothecated good in anY manner. L2. Accordingly, the Suit is decteed, ex'pafte, with cost Prepare the decree accordingly within fifteen days' 13. This judgment is pronounced in the open couft, which is given under my hand and seal of the Coutt, on this lth day of December,2OLT. 6ffi* (A, M, M d, ttla hlu ddi n, ) Civit Judge, No-2, Cachar, Silchan T""IItrf A.M.Md.Mahiuddin, Judge, No-2, Cachar, Silchar. TYPED BY ME Page 7 of 8_ Title suit No..53 of 2Ol4 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, Sil Branch. VS Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr. APPqNprx A, Plaintiffs exhibits : Ext.-l - Photocopy of authority letter (proved in origina!). Ext.'2- Application dated 21-06-2011. Ext.-2(1) to Ext.-2(2)- The signatures of defendant No-1. Ext.-3- Original biodate dated 21-06-2011. Ext.-3(1) The signature of defendant. Ext.-4-origi na I interuiew-cu m-a ppra isa ! form. Ext.-a(l) The signature of the defendant No. 1. Ext.-a(2)- The signature of official of the ptaintiff. Ext.-S- Original recommendation dated 24-06-2011. Ext.-5(l)-The signature of official of the plaintiff. Ext.-6- Sanction letter dated ZZ-OI-ZOLL. Ext.-6(1)- The signature of official of the plaintiff. Ext.-7- The acceptance letter dated 1Z-O7-?:OLL. Ext.-7(1)- The signature of the defendant No.1. Ext.-8- Composite Loan Agreement dated Z6-O7-ZOLL. Ext.-8(1) to Ext.-B(4)- The signatures of the defendant No.1. Ext.-9- Originala deed of guarantee dated Z6-O7-ZOLL. Ext.-g(1) to Ext.-9(5)-The signatures of the defendant No.2. Ext.-10-Originat biodata dated 08-06-2011. Ext.-10(1)- The signature of the defendant N0.2. Ext.-ll-Original letter dated Zt -Ot -2OLt. Ext.-l1(1)- The signature of the defendant No.1. Ext.- 12-Original receipt dated O3-Og-201 1. Ext.-12(1)- The signature of the defendant No.1. Ext.-13- Original letter dated 11-Og-2011. ryPED BY ME ..ntft A,M,Md.Mahiuddin,t''"ffiffi'.har' Tiug s,uit No. 53 of 2014 Page 8 of 8 Plaintiff: NEDrc Ltd, Sil Branch. Vs Defendants: Smti. Anuradha Nandi and anr. Ext.-13(1)- The signature of the defendant No.1. Ext.-14- Original receipt dated 19-09-2011. Ext.-14(1)- The signature of the defendant No.1. Ext.-15- Copy of notice dated 01-03-2013. Ext.-16- Original letter dated 15-03-2013. Ext.-16(1)- The signature of the defendant No.1. Ext.-17- Copy of recall notice dated 04-04-2013. Ext.-18- Copy of pleaders notice dated 2O-Og-2013. Ext.-19- Copy of lefter dated 26-O3-2OL4. Ext.-20- Ceftified copy of statement of accounts. Ext.-20(1) to'Ext.-20(4)- The signatures of the plaintiff. B. Defendants Exhibits : C. Court Exhibits : D. Plaintiffs witnesses : E. Defendant's witness : F. Court witness : Nil. Nil. P.W.-1- Sri. Ranendra Narayan Roy Choudhury. Nil. Nil. -sK*s A.M,Md.Mahiu\din,*frffigsirchar TYPED BY ME ^:a-a.tI iflL.I|U -

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. vs Smti Anuradha Nandi is North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd..

The Respondent in case North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. vs Smti Anuradha Nandi is Smti Anuradha Nandi and 2 more.

The case against Smti Anuradha Nandiwas filed on 27-05-2014 by North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd..

The status of case North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. against Smti Anuradha Nandi is Case Disposed.