Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 555/2018

Case between CANARA BANK vs Femi Sunil regarding realization of money.

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
SRI. REGHUNATH N.S.
Order Date
2024-01-31
Duration
approximately-5 years 2 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Canara Bank, seeks to recover a loan amount from the defendant, Femi Sunil, who failed to repay a term loan for the purchase of a vehicle. The defendant was irregular in making repayments despite numerous demands from the bank.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, allowing them to recover the loan amount with interest. The defendant is held responsible for the default in repayment.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 6,59,683 with interest.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
It is evident that the defendant committed default in repaying the loan amount as agreed in the loan agreement.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs of the plaintiff as follows. The plaintiff is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 6,59,683 from the defendant with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

CANARA BANK (Age not specified years) Maradu Branch, Ernakulam-682020

Defendants

Femi Sunil (32 years) 28/1513C, Puthiya Road, Nagarjuna Flat, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 6,59,683 from the defendant with interest.
Evidence:
Therefore, it is found that the plaintiff has proved his case and therefore, he is entitled to get a decree of realization of money as prayed for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Loan Application
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The defendant submitted Ext. A1 loan application to the plaintiff bank for availing loan in connection with purchase of a vehicle worth Rs. 5,94,371.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Loan Sanction Memorandum
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
By virtue of Ext. A2, loan sanction memorandum dated 26.11.2014, it is evident that the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan in favour of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Letter of undertaking
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
It is also evident that the defendant executed Ext. A3 letter of undertaking for the loan in favour of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Deed of Hypothecation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The defendant hypothecated his vehicle along with Ext. A4 deed of hypothecation.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Acknowledgement of Debt and Security
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext. A5 would show that the defendant signed and accepted the acknowledgement of debt and security on 20.11.2017.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Statement of Accounts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext. A6 statement of account of the defendant shows that the defendant did not make repayment of loan amount.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 01/31/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases