Allowed

Mrs. Divya Ravichandraa v. M/S. Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023RFA/1007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The partitioning of the bank's recovery agent's actions vis-a-vis the appellant-plaintiff was challenged by the trial court. The Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and decreed the suit as sought for.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.1580/2016 by the trial court is hereby set aside and the suit of the appellant – plaintiff is decreed as sought for by her.

Mrs. Divya Ravichandraa Vs M/S. Shaha Finlease Pvt… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43245 RFA No. 1007 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 OF 2018 (INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MRS. DIVYA RAVICHANDRAA W/O MR RAVICHANDRA A N R/A NO.1126, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, E BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. KIRAN V RON, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/S. SHAHA FINLEASE PVT. LTD HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.17/9, MIDC TALOJA TAL PANVEL, DIST:RAIGAD NAVI MUMBAI - 410 208.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S STANDARD CHARTERED BANK CARDS SERVICES CENTRE INDIA BANKCARD CENTRE NO.14, GENEVA HOUSE CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶13

(R1 SD & UNREPRESENTED; V/C/O DT. 03.11.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W)

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.1580/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43245 RFA No. 1007 of 2018

¶17

JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.1580/2016 on the file of the LVI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff for permanent injunction and other reliefs was dismissed by the trial court.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. The 2^nd respondent – 2^nd defendant was placed ex-parte before the trial court and hence, notice was dispensed with, while respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 has been served with notice and chosen to remain unrepresented.

¶22

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial court.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43245 RFA No. 1007 of 2018

¶24

The material on record discloses that the plaintiff had obtained a credit card from 2^nd defendant, who appointed the 1^st defendant as its recovery agent. It was contended that despite the plaintiff specifically intimating the 2^nd defendant that she was not due in any sum, the defendants along with their recovery agents etc., were attempting to threaten and intimidate the plaintiff, who instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction.

¶25

While, the 2^nd defendant remained ex-parte, the 1^st defendant entered appearance but did not file its written statement. The P.A.Holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The defendants neither cross-examined PW1 nor adduced any defence evidence. The trial court proceeded to hear the plaintiff and dismissed the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶26

The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, as to whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff?

¶27

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the trial court failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43245 RFA No. 1007 of 2018

¶29

plaintiff which was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as sought for in the suit. The trial court also failed to consider and appreciate the well settled position of law as held by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) ICICI Bank Limited vs. Prakash Kaur – (2007) 2 SCC 711, (ii) CityCorp Maruthi Finance Limited vs.S.Vijayalakshmi – (2012)1 SCC 1

¶30

and the judgment of the Kerala High court in the case of Smart Security and Secret Service Agency vs. State Bank of India – 2016 SCC Online KER 424, wherein the practice of banks and financial institutions in hiring the recovery / collection agents by resorting to strong arm tactics to recover alleged dues have been held to be illegal and deprecated and not permissible in law.

¶31

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court completely fell in error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which deserves to be set aside.

¶32