Bangalore District Court Bank Of Baroda vs Vishwanth R on 17 October, 2025 KABC170011532024 IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH84) Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L., LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU. COM.O.S.No.578/2024 Dated on this 17th day of October 2025 Plaintiff/s BANK OF BARODA A Body Corporate constituted by and under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings), Act, 1970, having head office situated at Baroda Bhavan, R C Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Vaddoara, Gujarat State and inter alia Branch Office at Peenya Branch, Bengaluru, Rep by its Chief Manager, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Srivastava, S/o Sheo Shankar Lal, Aged about 42 years (By Sri Nagaraj N. Damodar, Advocate) // versus // Defendant/s MR. VISHWANATH R S/o Ramu Aged about 39 years, PROPRIETOR M/S. JAI MAA ENTERPRISES No. 07 & 08, Raghavendra Layout, 18/A Cross, Thigalarapalya Main Road, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bengaluru560 058. (Rep.by Sri. Satyanarayana, Advocate) 2 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.5782024_Judgment.doc KABC170011532024 Date of Institution of suit : 18042024 Nature of the suit : Recovery of money Date of commencement of : 16102024 recording of the evidence Date on which the : 17102025 Judgment was pronounced. : Year/s Month/s Day/s Total duration 01 05 29 JUDGMENT. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against defendant for recovery of loan amount in respect of three loans of total sum of Rs. 11,29,365/ along with future interest. 2. The plaint averments in brief are that, the defendant, is the proprietor of M/s Jai Maa Enterprises and has availed three loans from the plaintiff. The first loan is term loan of Rs. 9,50,000 availed on 622020. The second loan is working capital term loan of Rs. 1,14,637 availed on 131 2021 and the third loan is also availed on the same date that is 1312021 and it is FITL loan of Rs. 15,363. The defendant has also executed all the documents in respect of having availed the said loans and agreeing to repay the 3 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.5782024_Judgment.doc KABC170011532024 same. Thereafter, defendant has defaulted in repayment of the loans and has not repaid the loans in spite of the loans having become NPA and in spite of issuance of loan recall notice. Hence, for recovery of the balance amounts due in respect of the above loan accounts, viz. Rs. 9,74,377 in respect of the first loan, Rs. 1,44,607 in respect of the second loan and Rs. 7,381 in respect of the third loan, i.e. for recovery of total sum of Rs. 11,26,365 along with interest at 9.30% per annum together with penal interest of 2% per annum compounded monthly from 142024 till date of realization, the present suit is filed. 3. On issuance of suit summons to the defendant, the defendant has entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed written statement. In the written statement of defendant, the defendant admits that he is proprietor of M/s Jai Maa Enterprises and also admits having availed the first term loan of Rs. 9,50,000. However, he has raised the contention that the other two loans, i.e. working capital term loan of Rs. 1,14,637 and FITL loan of Rs. 15,363, were opened at the insistence of the plaintiff and he had never sought for the said loans. He has pleaded that, due to the 4 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.5782024_Judgment.doc KABC170011532024 COVID19 pandemic, he faced difficulties in his catering business and therefore he had requested the plaintiff bank to extend the time for repayment by 24 months by fixing the EMI at Rs. 20,000. But it is contended that the plaintiff bank has refused and ignored all his legitimate requests made by way of various request letters dated 2862021, 1732023 and 252023. Thereby, it is contended that the bank has acted in a malafide manner and instead of encouraging an entrepreneur, the bank is