Bank sues for recovery of unpaid housing loan. Defendants did not appear; claim proven by documents. Suit decreed as prayed.
Suit decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.2148 OF 2003
Bank of Maharashtra ..Plaintiffs
Vs.
Shri Nelladhar N. Puthran & Anr.
..Defendants
Mr. Vinayak Sawant i/b Mr. N. K.Kamat for the Plaintiffs
None for the Defendants
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
DATE: 10th September , 2009
P.C. :
No.1 had obtained a Housing Loan from the Plaintiffs in the amount of Rs.3 lacs. Defendant No.1 executed a Demand Promissory Note, a request letter and an Agreement for Term Loan as well as a receipt all dated 13th June 2000. Defendant No.1 also deposited the Title Deeds of a residential flat, in order to create an equitable mortgage. A memorandum of recording the deposit was executed on 13th June 2000. In respect of the Housing Loan granted to Defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs have maintained an account in
the ordinary course of business. The amount of the housing loan has not been repaid. The Suit has been filed for recovery.
Summons. The averments contained in the Plaint have not been controverted. The Plaintiffs have relied upon an Affidavit of evidence of their witness and a Compilation of the documents. In the absence of any contest, the claim has been duly proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The Suit will accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e).
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
