AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Brijesh Sethi, Chairperson
This is an appeal against order dated 16.09.2022 passed by DRT-III, Delhi.
The learned counsel for the appellant bank submits that the bank has filed an O.A. (No.619/2022) against the respondents herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,08,66,375.15. Counsel for the appellant further states that when the O.A. was listed for the first time before the learned DRT on 16.09.2022, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents and certain directions were given to the authorized officer of the bank. It is submitted that on that date respondents were also directed to file their written statement within 30 days, but did not pass any order for appointing a receiver to take over the possession of the hypothecated vehicles, stating that such prayer would be considered after completion of service upon defendants (respondents herein).
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondents had approached the appellant bank for grant of loan facility to purchase Commercial Vehicles and pursuant to that request the appellant had agreed to grant a loan facility of Rs.1,89,92,965/- to purchase of three units of Vehicles/ChaSsis LPT 2818 and eight units of LPT 1913. Learned counsel for the appellant further states that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan facility, the respondents had agreed to repay the loan facility in 60 equated monthly installments carrying interest @09.20% p.a. at monthly rests and hypothecated the vehicles so purchased in favour of the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the bank accordingly sanctioned and disbursed to respondents the said amount after deducting the process fee and stamp duty charges in accordance with the term and conditions of the loan facilities. She submits that after availing the financial facilities, the respondents did not adhere to the financial discipline and failed to repay either the principal or interest or charges thereon and consequently the bank had to file an O.A. for recovery of Rs.3,08,66,375.15 along with pendente lite and future interest and costs with respect to the loan in question. She further states that in the O.A. itself the appellant had inter alia sought ex parte interim relief of appointing Mr. Krishna Kumar and Mr. Asad Abbas, officers of the applicant bank as Receiver, but the learned DRT did not appoint any Receiver.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned DRT ought to have allowed the interim prayer of the bank ex parte and appointed Receiver as once the service of the notice of the O.A. is effected upon the respondents, there is chances of the vehicles being disposed of, hidden or plied to some other place. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following judgments:-
M/s ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Kaptan Singh, II (2007) BC 586,
M/s ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Jal Singh, FAO No.271/2017, decided on 20.07.2007 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
M/s ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Rahul & Anr., FAO No.312/2018 decided on 06.08.2018 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shakti Singh & Anr., FAO 405/2018, decided on 14.09.2018 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
HDFC Bank Limited vs. South Delhi Motorcycles, Misc. Appeal No.32/2020, decided on 25.07.2020 by DRAT, Delhi
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for the appointment of the above officials of the bank to take into custody the following hypothecated vehicles:
S.N
o.
Nature of Vehicle/Model
Registration No/ Registration date
Body
Chasis No.
Engine No.
1.
Goods Carrier/TATA LPAT 2818 CR BS IV
HR38AB3693/ 28.04.2020
Desilting Machine- Super Sucker
MAT448645K 2P14302
ISBE5. 91804091M6381
7972
2.
Goods Carrier/TATA LPT 2818 CR BS IV
HR38AB7101/ 02.03.2020
Desilting Machine- Super Sucker
MAT448645K 2P14303
ISBE5. 91804091M6381
7844
3.
Goods Carrier/TATA LPT 2818 CR BS IV
HR38AB4779/ 28.04.2020
Desilting Machine- Super Sucker
MAT448645K 2P14294
ISBE5. 91804091M6381
7974
4.
Goods Carrier/TATA LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB3634/ 20.03.2020
DUMP TANK
MAT373429K 2P14648
CRI675PPY1104 05
5.
Goods Carrier/ TATA
LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB3056/ 28.04.2020
DUMP TANK
MAT373429K 2P14649
CRI675PPY1103 42
6.
Goods Carrier/ TATA LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB2403/ 24.02.2020
DUMP TANK
MAT373429K 2P14646
CRI675PPY1103 17
7.
Goods Carrier/TATA LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB8130/ 16.03.2020
TANKER
MAT373429K 2P14584
CRI675PPY1103 55
8.
Goods Carrier/TRAT A LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB7005/ 12.03.2020
TANKER
MAT373429K 2P14598
CRI675PPY1103 82
9.
Goods Carrier/TATA
LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB9554/ 24.02.2020
DUMP TANK
MAT373429K 2P14434
CRI675NPY1102 08
10
Goods Carrier/TATA LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB4366/ 28.04.2020
DUMP TANK
MAT373429K 2P14583
CRI675PPY1102 57
11.
Goods Carrier/TATA LPT 1913 CRI6 BS IV
HR38AB1179/ 20.03.2020
DUMP TANK
MAT373429K 2P14650
CRI675PPY1104 07
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the judgments cited by her, this Tribunal is of the opinion that Receiver be appointed to take possession of the vehicles in question. Accordingly, this Tribunal appoints Mr. Krishna Kumar and Mr. Asad Abbas, officials of the bank, as requested, as Receiver with power to seize the aforesaid vehicles from wherever and from anyone who is found to be in possession of the same and to retain the same in their custody till further orders of this Tribunal. The possession of the vehicles will be taken between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. only. The Receivers can take police assistance also, if so required. A report shall be submitted by the said Receivers before the DRT.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.