ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. AJEET KUMAR TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment/order dated 16th February, 2015 by which the suit for recovery filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff bank (hereinafter, 'Plaintiff bank') was dismissed. The judgement of the Trial Court dismisses the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff bank did not adduce evidence and the case of the Plaintiff was thus not proved. The Trial Court also observes that the original loan recall notice dated 12th March, 2014 was not filed by the Bank.

(2.) In the present appeal, notice was issued on 29th May, 2015. Initially, the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, 'Defendant') was not served and the report of the Registry continued to remain 'Awaited.' Thereafter, however, the Defendant remained unserved as he had "left the place'. Steps were taken for serving the Defendant through publication. Service was completed through publication, as recorded in the order of the Registrar dated 9 th November, 2017.

(3.) The Defendant approached the Plaintiff bank for financing of the purchase of a vehicle under loan-cum-hypothecation scheme for a sum of Rs.3, 30, 000/-. The Defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly instalments (hereinafter, 'EMI') of Rs.7, 361/- each. The loan was duly sanctioned and was disbursed on 10th April, 2013 to the dealer from whom the vehicle was to be purchased by the Defendant, after deducting usual processing fee and stamp duty charges. All the loan documents were executed by the Defendant.