MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MOOT COURT

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY, UILS

Before

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

HIMANSHI BANK Pvt. Ltd.

............ .............................................................................................APPELLANT

V.

LAKITA BARGOTRA ..…………………………………………………….....RESPONDENT

APPEAL U/ART. 226 of Indian Constitution

Memorial for the Respondent

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………..1
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………..
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………2
4. ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………3
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………4
6. WRITTEN SUBMISSION……………………………………………………………..5
7. PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUE:

● Indian Contract Act, 1872

● Banking Regulation Act, 1949

CASES LAW:
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Lakita Bargotra, a resident of Gauraun, house no. 76, near park colony ,140301, opened a
saving bank A/c in Himanshi bank Pvt. Ltd Which is Located at Gauraun, Mohali, Punjab.
2. She took a loan for purchasing a car on date 1st dec 2014. Loan amount was Rs. 20 lakhs
(Rs 20,00,000), @10% P/A.
3. Duration to repay the loan is 5 years.
4. 1st installment has been started on date 1st Jan 2015. Last installment is on date 31st dec 2020
5. EMI was Rs 36,666 per month.
6. There was a delay of 2 days in payment of last installment. After two days on 2nd Jan 2021,
the principal amount was paid along with interest.
7. On 1st Feb 2021 bank served a notice to Lakita Bargotra demanding Rs 20,000 more interest
which was denied by Lakita Bargotra through letter on 3rd Feb 2021 stating that she has
already paid all the EMIs.
8. Again, after two days on 5th Feb 2021 she received a same notice from the banker,
demanding the same amount.
9. Bank has charged the extra interest in the case of inflation.
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the penalty of Rs 20,000 imposed by the bank is justified or not?

2. Whether the delay was justified on reasonable ground?
3. Is there a policy to demand Rs 20,000 on the ground of delay on payment of installment?
4. Whether there is any inflation during these 5 years or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the penalty of Rs 20,000 imposed by the bank is justified or not?

Explanation: According to the loan agreement, Rs. 20000 is a huge amount for two days delay. Even
the principal amount along with interest has been paid by Lakita after two days. Moreover, there was
no such condition mentioned in loan agreement regarding the penalty of delay in payment.

2. Whether the delay was justified on reasonable ground?

Explanation: Yes, the delay was justified on reasonable grounds as there was a bonafide intension
present. Respondent has no other financial source or assets except her salary to repay the
installments. She is working in ABC company Ltd, as a civil engineer as her salary is Rs 60,000. There
was two days delay in her salary similarly the last installment was delayed.
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Is there a policy to demand Rs 20,000 on the ground of delay on payment of installment?