ICICI Bank Ltd vs Yash Trans Logistics Pvt Ltd And Anr

Brijesh Sethi, Chairperson

Vide this order, I shall dispose of this appeal filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. against the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned DRT-III, Delhi, not allowing the ex parte interim prayer of the bank to appoint a receiver to impound the hypothecated vehicles, stating the prayer for appointment of receiver shall be considered after service of notice. The learned DRT has, however, restrained the respondents from selling, transferring or otherwise creating any third party interest with regard to hypothecated vehicle/s until further orders.

The learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondents had approached the bank for a loan of Rs.40,69,054/- for the purchase of two commercial vehicles and had entered into a loan agreement under loan-cum-hypothecation scheme with the bank. He further submits that the appellant thereafter sanctioned the loan and disbursed Rs.35,54,529/- to the dealer of the vehicles and Rs.3,60,000/- to respondent no.1 as per the request of the respondent, after deducting disbursement charges in terms of the Loan documents. The respondents had agreed to pay the aforesaid two loans in 47 equated monthly instalments and had got hypothecated the above vehicles in favour of the appellant. However, according to the appellant, 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. (No.278/2022) for recovery of Rs.25,82,654.12 along with pendente lite and future interest and costs with respect to the loan in question.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has prayed for appointment of Mr.Raj Kumar/Mr. Ajeet Singh Chauhan/ Mr.Asad Abbas, the representatives of the bank to take into custody the hypothecated vehicles, i.e. AL 2518 having Registration No.HR-38Y-9341, AL 2518 having Registration No.HR-38Y-8226, AL 2518- BODY and AL 2518 - BODY. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the DRT ought to have allowed the interim prayer of the bank ex parte and appointed a receiver for taking over the custody of the vehicles in question.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following judgements:

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Dharmednra, CM(M) 384/2017 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 12.04.2017

ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Chandra Yadav, CM(M) 1333/2016 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 21.12.2016

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that respondents have failed to repay the loan, this Tribunal is of the opinion that a Receiver needs to be appointed to take possession of the vehicles in question. Accordingly, this Tribunal appoints Mr.Raj Kumar/Mr. Ajeet Singh Chauhan/ Mr.Asad Abbas, representatives of the appellant bank, as requested, as Receivers with power to seize the commercial vehicles, i.e. AL 2518 having Registration No.HR-38Y-9341, AL 2518 having Registration No.HR-38Y-8226, AL 2518- BODY and AL 2518 - BODY from wherever and from anyone who is found to be in possession of the same and to retain the same in his custody till further orders of the Tribunal. The possession of the vehicles will be taken between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. only The Receiver can take police assistance also, if so required. A report shall be submitted by the said Receiver before the DRT.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.