BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT I AT

ERNAKULAM

O.S. No.384 /2008

ING Vysya Bank : Plaintiff

T.J.Joseph & Anr : Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER

VIII RULE I OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. All the averments in the plaint are denied except to the specific
extent admitted hereunder. Those averments that are not denied
for want of knowledge may not be treated as admitted.

2. The averments in para 1 are not to the knowledge of this

defendant. Hence the plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the
same.

3. The averment in para 2 is not fully correct. It was one of the direct
sales executive who approached the defendants and offered to give
a bank loan at a very low rate of interest, which this defendant
presumed to be attractive and therefore agreed to take a loan of Rs
3, 53, 005/-

4. In reply to the averments in para 3 it is submitted that the

defendants had signed the application for car loan duly filed in by
the sales executive, and presented the same on 20-06-2005, to the
Plaintiff’s branch at Kottayam, through the sales executive of the
plaintiff bank, for the purchase of a new TATA INDICA DLX car, for
an amount of Rs 3, 53, 005/-, repayable in 60 installments
beginning on 23-07-2005 and ending on 23-06-2010 and the loan
was duly sanctioned.

5. The averments in para 4 are not fully correct. When the loan
amount was sanctioned the defendants had signed an agreement
dated 28-05-2005 for vehicle loan and hypothecation in favour of
 the plaintiff bank at Kottayam, and a demand promissory note
dated 28-05-2005 was also executed.

6. In reply to para 5 it is submitted that the the defendants had

executed a demand promissory note dated 28-06-2005 promising
to pay ING Vysya Bank, Kottayam on demand or order the value
received with interest at 11.07 % per annum with
mpnthly/quarterly rests.

7. In reply to para 6 it is submitted that the defendant has not

executed any deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff as alleged
and has not expressly agreed or undertaken any promise.

8. In reply to para 7 it is submitted that this defendant had been

repaying the installments amounts but there had been some delay
in remitting certain installments due to huge financial constraints.
Meanwhile this defendant finding the increasing amount of interest
at a very fast pace, doubting the veracity of the accounts of the
plaintiff Bank, had requested for the statement of accounts from
the plaintiff bank at Kottayam but surprisingly the bank officials
were reluctant to give a copy. This defendant then questioned the
authenticity and correctness of the accounts and the interest
charged and questioned the same but to the much dismay of the
defendant the officials of the plaintiff’s bank at Kottayam were not
willing to at least give an explanation. Therefore it cannot be said
that it was the defendant who violated the terms and conditions of
the loan agreement.

9. The averment in para 8 is denied. The defendants have not

received repeated requests, reminders and notices as alleged.
Hence the plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.

10. The averment in para 9 is also denied. This defendant is not

in receipt of the notice dated 28-03-2008 as alleged. Hence the
plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the alleged lawyer notice.
11. The averment in para 10 is not fully correct. The defendants
have not received repeated requests, reminders and notices as
alleged. The plaintiff bank at Kottayam had repossessed the car
illegally without any previous notice to the defendant and in total
violation of the Hire Purchase Act. The car was taken from the
defendant by force in July 2006 in spite of the defendant making
payments. The defendant submits that the plaintiff must be put to
strict proof regarding the legality of the seizure of the vehicle, and
the subsequent steps taken by the plaintiff bank at Kottayam. The
defendant also submits that the plaintiff had seized the vehicle
without due notice to this defendant and the alleged selling of the
vehicle has also not been brought to the notice of this defendant. It
is submitted that the vehicle which was seized in July 2006 is said
to have been sold in auction in 2008 after the issuance of the
alleged lawyer notice, which clearly reveals that the plaintiff was
operating the vehicle as taxi which could have fetched a minumum
of Rs 500 per day. The said amount whatever, has not been
adjusted to the account of the defendant. The Plaintiff though
stating to have sold the vehicle in auction has remained silent
regarding the amount for which it was auctioned, or the amount
received from the sale proceeds. Again this reveals that the plaintiff
must have sold the vehicle at a very low price to interested parties
to the much prejudice of this defendant and is presently
deliberately trying to hide the same from the eyes of this Hon’ble
Court. If the true accounts are checked, and the actual proceeds of
operating the vehicle from July 2006 to March 2008 and the sale
proceeds of the vehicle accounted properly, it is submitted that the
plaintiff will owe the defendant a large amount as balance after
adjustments. It is submitted that no adjustments from the alleged
sale proceeds have been made. There has been no necessity for the
above suit since there is no balance amount owed by the
 defendants to the plaintiff, had a proper and correct accounting be
carried out.

12. The averment in para 11 is denied. No amount as alleged is

due from the defendants to the plaintiff. The interest charged is
very high and against the norms and directives prescribed by the
Reserve Bank of India. The defendants are not liable to pay the
plaintiff interest at 24% p.a., which is very high, and against the
agreed terms.

13. The averments in para 12 are denied. The averment that the
plaintiff comes under the Banking Regulation Act is not to the
knowledge of this defendant and the plaintiff may be put to strict
proof of the same. The transaction between the plaintiff and the
defendant is not a commercial transaction as alleged since the
same is not connected with the industry, trade or business of the
defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled to any future interest as
alleged and are not entitled to realize any amount from the assets
of the defendants, either movable or immovable. The rate of future
interest claimed is also very high and is against the norms and
directives of the RBI.

14. The averments in para 13 are not correct. The interest

charged and the rates and capitalization are not in conformity with
the directives of the RBI. It is once again made clear that the
defendants have not received repeated requests, reminders and
notices as alleged.

15. The averment in para 14 is denied. The assets of the

defendants, both movable and immovable are not jointly or
severally liable for the plaint claim since it is the plaintiff bank
which has violated the terms of agreement and the subsequent
developments after the seizure of the vehicle in July 2006 is
sufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff even when the claim is
made at illegally huge rates.
 16. The averment regarding cause of action and jurisdiction is
vehemently disputed by the defendants. There is no cause of action
as alleged. The plaint transaction took place at Kottayam, the
application dated 20-06-05 is made at Kottayam and all the loan
documents were executed at Kottayam, and even the installments
already paid by the defendants was made through the direct
executives of the plaintiff bank to the plaintiff’s branch at
Kottayam. It is submitted that no part of the transaction has ever
taken place in Ernakulam so as to be within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court. The plaintiff has filed the above suit with the only
intention of harassing this defendant, a senior citizen, and to
forcefully make this defendant oblige to the illegal demands made
by the plaintiff. Therefore the above suit is not maintainable before
this Hon’ble Court due to lack of jurisdiction.

17. The Valuation of the suit is not proper since the defendant is
not liable to pay the amount. The Court fee paid is also not correct.
The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
Therefore, the suit is only liable to be dismissed with costs to this
defendant.

All the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.

Dated this the 20th day of June 2008.

Defendant

VERIFICATION
I, T.J.Joseph, aged 61 years, S/o T.J.Joseph, residing at Thekkadathu
House, Thottakadu P.O, Near American Pady, Kottayam do hereby
declare that all the facts stated above are true to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Dated this the 20th day of June 2008.

Defendant
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUB COURT I AT ERNAKULAM

O.S.No. 384/2008

ING Vysya Bank : Plaintiff

v.

T.J.Joseph & Anr : Defendant

AFFIDAVIT

I, T.J.Joseph, aged 61 years, S/o T.J.Joseph, residing at Thekkadathu House,

Thottakadu P.O, Near American Pady, Kottayam do hereby solemnly
affirm and state as follows;

1. I am the 1st defendant in the above suit. I know the facts of the
case. I am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. All the factual averments in the Written Statement are prepared

on my instructions, which is true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. The legal grounds taken are on the
advice of my counsel.

All facts stated above are true.

Dated this the 20th day of June 2008.

Deponent

Deponent literate having understood the contents of the affidavit

solemnly affirmed and signed before me on this the 20 th day of June
2008.

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUB COURT I AT ERNAKULAM

O.S.No. 384//08

ING Vysya Bank : Plaintiff

v.

T.J.Joseph & Anr : Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
1ST DEFENDANT

P.SANJAY
JINU JOSEPH
Counsel for the 1st Defendant