IN THE COURT OF LD.

DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI,

DELHI
SUIT NO. NO.___________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
HARIOM PRAJAPATI … DEFENDANT
INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Court fee
2. MEMO OF PARTIES
3. SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.________
ALONG WITH PENDENTELITE AND
FUTURE INTEREST

4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS.

5. VAKALATNAMA

PLAINTIFF

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THROUGH

(PRANAV KUMAR JHA)

(ISHAN JAIN)
ADVOCATE
CHAMBER NO.673, WESTERN WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI-110054
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI
SUIT NO. NO.___________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

HARIOM PRAJAPATI … DEFENDANT

MEMO OF PARTIES

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Branch Office: SHAKTI NAGAR,
Delhi
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT:

7, BHIKHAJI CAMA PLACE

NEW DELHI-110066 … PLAINTIFF
Versus

SH. HARIOM PRAJAPATI,

A-20, GALI NO.3, HARSH DEV PARK,
BUDH, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI

ALSO AT:

L-2/47, SHASTRI NAGAR,

DELHI-110052

ALSO AT:
A-404, SHASTRI NAGAR,
DELHI-110052
……….Defendant

COUNSEL

(PRANAV KUMAR JHA & ISHAN JAIN)

CHAMBER NO.673, WESTERN WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI-110054
PLACE: DELHI

DATED: __________
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI
SUIT NO. NO.___________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

HARIOM PRAJAPATI … DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 5,28,055/(RUPEES FIVE

LAKH TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND FIFTY FIVE ONLY)
ALONGWITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AT
THE CANTRATUAL RATE OF INTEREST

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff, Punjab National Bank, is a

body corporate incorporated under the Banking

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 7, Bhikhaji

Cama Place, New Delhi and, amongst others, a

Branch Office at Shakti Nagar, Delhi.

2. That Shri Praveen Chhabra S/o Des Raj Chhabra is

an Officer of the plaintiff Bank and is presently

posted as Manager at its Branch Office at Shakti

Nagar, Delhi. He is fully conversant with the facts of

the case. He is also a duly constituted attorney of

the plaintiff Bank and is authorized to sign, verify

and file the present suit and to do all the needful in

this regard on behalf of the plaintiff Bank.

3. That Defendant is borrower and liable to repay the

loan to plaintiff bank.

4. That Defendant made an application to plaintiff

bank for financial assistance under “Prime

Minister’s Employment Generation Programmer

(PMEGP)”

5. That at the request of Defendant a Term loan of Rs.

6,00,000/ (Rs. Six Lakhs only) and Cash Credit

Limit of Rs. 4,00,000/(Rupees four lakhs only) i.e.

total loan of Rs. 10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakhs ) was

sanctioned by plaintiff bank to defendant.

Defendant undertook to be abided by all the terms

and conditions of sanction letter.

6. That after sanction of loan two separate

hypothecation agreement one for securing Term

Loan and another for securing cash credit facility

were executed between plaintiff and defendant on

2nd of March, 2015.

7. That per the Hypothecation Agreements defendant

agreed to pay interest @ 12.35% on Term Loan and

11.85% with monthly rest on Cash Credit Facilities

It has also been agreed by defendant that in the

 event of default, the loan account(s) becoming

irregular, etc., an additional interest @ 2% p.a. over

and above the agreed rate shall be charged.

Defendant hypothecated his entire Machinery, other

fixed assets, raw material, semi finished, finished

goods and any other security used in the premises

and all types of book debts for securing term loan

and Credit Limit Facility.

8. That vide letter dated 02.03.2015 defendant

authorized plaintiff bank to deduct Rs.10,000/ (Ten

Thousand only) from the account of defendant till

loan is fully adjusted.

9. That two separate loan account i.e A/c No.

152600SG00000026 (For term Loan) and Loan A/c

No. 1526008700000665 (for cash credit facility) was

opened by defendant with plaintiff bank and

defendant availed of the aforementioned term loan

and cash credit facilities.

10. That Defendant failed to maintain financial

discipline and did not deposit instalments of loan

amount as per the terms and conditions of the

sanction letter/ agreement and accordingly loan

accounts became irregular. Defendant despite

regular follow up by the officials of the plaintiff

 Defendants did not regularize its loan/facility

accounts. Therefore, the loan/facility accounts have

been classified as Non Performing Asset on

31.03.2016 in accordance with the guidelines of

Reserve Bank of India with the outstanding amount

of Rs. 3,75,326/ (Rs. Three Lakh seventy five

thousand three hundred twenty six only) in term

loan account and Rs. 1,36,029/ (Rs. One lakh thirty

six thousand and twenty nine only). As per the

prudential accounting norms prescribed by the

plaintiff Bank in accordance with the directives of

Reserve Bank of India, no interest has been debited

in the loan/facility account of Defendant and the

same is being recorded separately in the

Memoranda Register.

11. That plaintiff bank recalled the entire loan amount

alonwith interest vide its demand/legal notice dated

24.06.2016 through advocate and asked the

defendant to pay the entire dues within 15 days but

defendant failed to pay a single penny.

12. That the amount due from the Defendants to the

plaintiff Bank with interest was Rs. 5,11,355/ (Rs.

Five lakh eleven thousand three hundred and fifty

five only) on 31.03.2016 i.e on the date of accounts

 being classified as NPA in the books of accounts

maintained by the plaintiff Bank in its usual and

ordinary course of its business of banking. Besides

the said amount of Rs. 5,11,355/ (Rs. Five lakh

eleven thousand three hundred and fifty five only) a

sum of Rs. 16,700/ (Rupees sixteen thousand seven

hundred only) has also become due on account of

interest from 31.03.2016 to till the filing of the suit

as per the Memoranda of Record of NPA register.

Thus a total sum of Rs. 5,28,055/(Rupees five lakh

twenty eight thousand and fifty five only) is due and

recoverable from the defendant.

13. That the plaintiff Bank is entitled to pendent lite

and future interest at the contracted/agreed rate.

with monthly rests as on the date of this suit. At

present the loan/facility account being overdue,

irregular and sticky and therefore, the Plaintiff Bank

is entitled to charge additional interest @ 2% over

and above the contracted/agreed rate of interest.

14. That the cause of action arose on various dates viz.

on 02.03.2015 when the Loaning & Security

Documents were executed, on the dates when

Defendant availed the credit facilities, on

31.03.2016 when accounts were classified as NPA,

 on 24.06.2016 when demand notice was sent and

entire amount was recalled and when the

defendants failed to repay the dues of the plaintiff

bank. The cause of action continues to arise in

continuum.

15. The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court as the Loaning & Security

Documents were executed and the credit facilities,

on account of which the debt due is being claimed

in this suit, were availed of by the defendants at the

plaintiff Bank’s B.O. at Shakti Nagar, Delhi;

16. That this Hon’ble Court has pecuniary as well as

territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.

17. That court fee of Rs.7,300/ has been filed with

plaint.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may in the interest of justice be pleased to:-

a. Pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,28,055/(Rupees five

lakh twenty eight thousand and fifty five only)

alongwith pendent-lite future interest against

defendant and in favour of plaintiff.

b. Allow the cost of the suit in favour of plaintiff.

 c. Pass Such other or further orders, as this Hon’ble

court may deed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

PLAINTIFF

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Verification:

I, Shri Praveen Chhabra S/o Des Raj Chhabra is an Officer of

the plaintiff Bank and is presently posted as Manager of the

Plaintiff Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Shakti Nagar,

Delhi and duly Constituted Attorney, do hereby verify that the

contents of Para No. 1 to and ______ to ____ are true and

correct to my knowledge and belief and that I have not

suppressed any material facts.

PLAINTIFF

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THROUGH

COUNSEL

(PRANAV KUMAR JHA & ISHAN JAIN)

CHAMBER NO.673, WESTERN WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI-110054
Place: Delhi

Date:
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI
SUIT NO. NO.___________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HARIOM PRAJAPATI … DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT

I Praveen Chhabra S/o Shri Des Raj Chhabra aged about 53

years working as Manger with the Punjab National Bank,

Branch Office at Shakti Nagar, Delhi, do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am working as Manger in the plaintiff Bank. I am

well conversant with the facts of the case and am duly

authorised and competent to depose in respect thereto.

2. That the contents of the accompanying suit are true and

correct to my knowledge as per the records maintained

by the plaintiff Bank and the suit has been drafted under

my instructions.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this ______ day of _______, 2016 that

the contents of the above affidavit are true to my

knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material

has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT