AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
I have heard Counsel for the parties. The appellant Bank is aggrieved by an order of the DRT whereby the vehicle, which appellant Bank claims to have financed, has been ordered to be released in favour of respondent No. 2 herein, who claims to have purchased the same through a dealer of second-hand cars on superdari for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs. Counsel for respondent No. 2 says that he has furnished superdarinama and the same has been accepted also by the DRT.
In my view, the DRT having exercised its discretionary power ordering release of the hypothecated vehicle on superdari basis and taking into consideration the fact that in the records of the RTO Bank's lien is not noted and considering all the facts and circumstances, I do not find this to be a fit case for any interference in the exercise of discretion by the DRT in directing release of the vehicle only on superdari basis.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed making it clear that the DRT will decide the Bank's claim totally uninfluenced by the rejection of this appeal by the Bank and this order will also not deprive the appellant Bank to move an appropriate application under Section 19(18) of RDDBFI Act, 1993 for obtaining appropriate directions for recovery of its money by attachment and sale of its buyer's property, movable as well as immovable, as has been requested by Counsel for the appellant. In case any such prayer is made before the DRT, the same shall also be dealt with in accordance with law.
It will also be open to the respondent No. 2 herein to raise any claim against the Bank on account of the fact that according to him his vehicle was wrongfully seized by the Bank and if such claim is made, the same will also be dealt with by the DRT.
The file of the DRT be sent back with.