1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 4782 OF 1994 UCO Bank. .... Plaintiff. V/s. Rajesh G. Kulkarni. .... Defendant. ....... Ms. Asmita Sali i/b. M/s. M. Dhruva & Co. for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. ........ CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 29TH JANUARY 2008. P.C. :- The suit has been instituted for the recovery of (i) an amount of Rs.1,51,042.85, under a Housing Loan facility; (ii) an amount of Rs.22,333.45, under a Consumer Loan facility; and (iii) an amount of Rs. 4,591.70, under a Marriage Loan facility granted by the Plaintiff to 2 the Defendant. The Defendant is a former employee of the Plaintiff – Bank, who was dismissed from service in 1993, after a Disciplinary Enquiry. On the request of the Defendant, a housing loan facility was granted by the Plaintiff against which the Defendant executed on 18th March 1986 a Promissory Note; a letter of Waiver; a letter authorizing the Plaintiff to deduct monthly installments from the salary and an acknowledgment of receipt of a sum of Rs.66,000/- towards the housing loan. The Defendant deposited the title deeds of his residential flat together with a memorandum reflecting an intention to create an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds. An additional housing loan was sanctioned in the amount of Rs.33,400/- on 14th December, 1987 in token whereof a letter dated 14th December 1987 was executed by the Defendant confirming the deposit of the title deeds to secure the repayment thereof. A further loan of Rs.11,000/- was granted against which the Defendant executed a demand promissory note dated 3rd June 1988 and other documents by way of security including an 3 authority to the Bank to deduct the installments from the monthly salary. The Defendant also confirmed the creation of security by way of a deposit of title deeds to secure repayment of the loan. An acknowledgment of debt dated 20th January 1989 was executed by the Defendant. An account has been maintained by the Plaintiff of the monies due and payable under the housing loan facility. On 10th July 1991 the Plaintiff sanctioned a consumer loan of Rs.13,410/- to the Defendant, in consideration whereof, the Defendant executed an agreement dated 12th July 1991, by which, the Defendant hypothecated the movable articles reflected therein in favour of the Plaintiff. The consumer loan was to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.230/- and was to carry interest at the rate of 6% over and above the R.B.I. rate with the minimum of 16% per annum. On 9th August 1991, the Defendant made a request for an additional loan against which the Plaintiff granted a further loan to the extent of Rs.1,590/-. An account has been maintained by the Plaintiff in the due and usual course of business. 4 The Plaintiff had, on the request of the Defendant, sanctioned a marriage loan in the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was disbursed. The Defendant having failed to pay the outstanding dues, the Plaintiff addressed an Advocate's notice dated 2nd May 1994. The suit is instituted on 10th November 1994, for the recovery of the outstanding dues. The Defendant has been served with the writ of summons but has not entered appearance. The suit is accordingly treated as an Undefended Suit. The Plaintiff has relied upon an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of its Assistant Manager and a compilation of the original documents. The claim in the suit is duly proved on the basis thereof. In the absence of any defence, the claim has remained to be controverted. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) with the modification that the Plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit until payment or realization. 5 ------