Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Kamal Bhayana and Anr.

DRAT22 Aug 2022MISC APPEAL/173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's interim prayer to appoint a receiver to seize the hypothecated Tata Signa vehicle after the borrower defaulted on loan installments and opposed the sale or transfer of the asset.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Krishna Kumar, an officer of the appellant bank, as Receiver with power to seize the hypothecated vehicle and retain it in his custody.

Icici Bank Limited versus Kamal Bhayana and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 173/2022 Arising out of O.A. No. 412/2022 (DRT-III, Delhi)

¶3

ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Kamal Bhayana & Anr.

¶4

22.08.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶5

Present: Ms. Chetna Bhalla and Mr. Rachit Bigghe, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

¶6

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Affidavit of service has been filed. None is present for respondents.

¶8

I.A. No.478/2022

¶9

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶10

Application stands disposed of.

¶11

Misc.Appeal No.173/2022

¶12

Vide this order, I shall dispose of this appeal filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. against the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the learned DRT-III, Delhi, declining the interim prayer of the bank to appoint a receiver to impound the hypothecated vehicle. The learned DRT has, however, allowed the prayer of the appellant and restrained the respondents (defendants in the O.A.) from selling, transferring or otherwise creating third party interest with regard to the hypothecated vehicle as detailed in para 7(a) of the O.A., till further orders.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondents had approached the bank for a loan of Rs.46,80,000/- for the purchase of vehicle TATA SIGNA 5530 and had entered into a loan agreement under loan-cumhypothecation scheme with the bank. She further submits that the appellant thereafter sanctioned the loan and disbursed an amount of Rs.46,76,999.98 to the dealer of the vehicle as per the request of the respondents. The respondents had agreed to pay the loan with interest in 47 equated monthly installments. 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. for recovery of

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

Rs.41,71,432/- along with pendente lite and future interest and costs with respect to the loan in question.

¶16

The learned counsel for appellant submits that from the beginning itself the respondents made default in the payment of monthly installments and at the time of filing of the O.A. three installments were due and as on date, five installments are due from the respondents.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for appointment of Mr.Krishna Kumar/ Mr. Nishant / Mr. Vijay Kumar, the officials of the bank to take into custody the hypothecated vehicle, i.e. Commercial Vehicle TATA SIGNA 5530 having Engine No.B6.7B6A300D02112B64142792, Chassis No.MAT828020M3B04539 and Registration No.NL-01AE-8839. 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 vehicle in question.

¶18

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments:-

¶19

Citicorp Finance India Ltd. Vs. Varender Swaroop, FAO(OS) No.335/2008 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 08.08.2008;

¶20

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

¶21

ICICI Bank Vs. Dharmendra, CM(M) No.384/2017 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 12.04.2017

¶22

ICICI Bank Vs. Updesh Nagar, FAO No.07/2016 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 05.01.2016;

¶23

ICICI Bank Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhandal & Ors., W.P(C) No.9232/2016 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 10.02.2017;

¶24

ICICI Bank Vs. Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Misc. Appeal No.293/2013 decided by DRAT, Delhi on 02.12.2013;

¶25

ICICI Bank Vs. Pritam Sharma, Misc. Appeal No.235/2018 decided by DRAT, Delhi on 28.05.2018.

¶26

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the judgments cited by her, this Tribunal is of the opinion that a Receiver be appointed to take possession of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, this Tribunal appoints Mr. Krishna Kumar, an officer of the appellant bank, as

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

requested, as Receiver with power to seize the vehicle TATA SIGNA 5530 having Engine No.B6.7B6A300D02112B64142792, Chassis No.MAT828020M3B04539 and Registration No.NL-01AE-8839 from wherever and from anyone who is found to be in possession f the same and to retain the same in his custody till further orders of this Tribunal. The Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the possession of the vehicle 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.

¶29

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶31

-pk

Icici Bank Limited v. Kamal Bhayana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Kamal Bhayana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Beena Tripathi and Ors. versus Ms Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Pchfl

Tushar Gupta versus Hdfc Bank and Ors.

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. versus Diwan Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation Ltd. and Anr.. versus Ram Kumar Aggarwal and Ors.

M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company and Ltd. versus Kavindra Kumar Singh and Ors.