ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Balaji Services And Ors.

J.M. Malik, J

Counsel for the appellant heard in respect of the order rendered by the learned DRT dated 14.2.2011. This order contains the general directions to the appellant. I find considerable force in appellant Counsel's contention that these directions concern the appellant Bank only and therefore no notice be issued to the opposite party/respondent. This is a matter between the Court and the appellant only.

Counsel for the appellant picks up conflict with two or three points otherwise he has no objection regarding some directions issued by the learned DRT. The first direction runs at para 15(2) of the impugned order which is reproduced as follows:

15.1 may further add here that looking into overall conduct of the Bank mentioned hereinabove, 1 would like to make it clear that in future subject to filing an undertaking to the following effect along with IA in the OA

praying for grant of permission for taking over of vehicles through Court Receiver Tribunal may allow/consider such prayer to take over the physical possession of the vehicles:

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) That the Bank shall keep such possessed vehicles within a sphere of 20 kms. from the premises of the DRT, Delhi."

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the ICICI Bank would face difficulty because there is no parking yard which is available in the area of 20 kms. from the premises of DRT, Delhi. He further argued that this order should be amended and it be ordered that the Bank shall keep such possessed vehicles within the NCR of Delhi. This ground appears to be genuine but I am of the considered view that, first of all, the appellant should ventilate its grievance before the learned DRT.

Again, Para No. 15(iv) of the said order further reads:

(iv) That the Bank shall further undertake that where the Tribunal passes an order for sale of the vehicle, the same shall be concluded within 45 days w.e.f. passing the order except where an appeal has been preferred by any aggrieved party. The Bank will take immediate steps as per direction to be passed by the Tribunal/learned R.O.

Counsel for the appellant submits that some time the auction fails and the whole process is to be reinitiated which could not be completed within 45 days. This request also appears to be genuine, therefore, this request must be made before the learned DRT who will pass the appropriate orders.

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and the appellant is given liberty to move an application for review before the learned Trial Court and it can raise other permissible grounds as well in the review petition. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the order passed in this case should not affect the merits of the learned Trial Court's proceedings. The said request be made to the learned Trial Court in the review petition.

Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.