Case Summary
This case involves the State Bank of India suing Jolly A.D for the recovery of a personal loan amount. The defendant, having defaulted on payments, is being held liable for the outstanding sum.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Directing the defendants to pay an amount of ₹3,08,708.50 with interest
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay ₹3,08,708.50 with interest. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant's assets in case of default.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaintiff's claim.
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaintiff's claim.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaintiff's claim.
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaintiff's claim.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents would satisfactorily prove the plaint claim.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, The suit is decreed directing the defendants to pay an amount of ₹3,08,708.50/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eight and Paise Fifty only), with 12.10% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- State Bank of India, Ernakulam Branch
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jolly A.D
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Loan Arrangement letter, Personal Loan Agreement, Irrevocable standing Instruction, Legal notice issued to the defendant, Returned envelope of the notice issued to the defendant, Statement of account bearing A/c no. 40322432303 issued by SBI, Ernakulam for the period from 29.07.21 to 06.03.24
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mumtaz Shamsuddin
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Alisha Aslam
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Recovery of an amount of ₹3,08,708.50 from the defendant.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed directing the defendants to pay an amount of ₹3,08,708.50/-.
Relief Type:
Interest
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Interest at 12.10% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Evidence:
With 12.10% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Costs of the litigation are awarded to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the litigation.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Loan Arrangement Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing the terms of the loan provided to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Personal Loan Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement outlining the obligations of the defendant regarding the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Irrevocable Standing Instruction
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Authorizes the bank to deduct monthly EMIs directly from the defendant's salary.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Legal notice issued to the defendant
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice informing the defendant of the outstanding liability.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Returned envelope of the notice issued to the defendant
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof that the legal notice was unserved.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Statement of Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Detailed account statement evidencing the outstanding amount due.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between State Bank of India, Ernakulam Branch et al vs Jolly A.D regarding Suit for money
Case Code Year
Case between State Bank of India, Ernakulam Branch et al vs Jolly A.D regarding Suit for money