Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the appeal against the order declining appointment of a receiver. The Tribunal appointed an official receiver to seize a hypothecated commercial vehicle from possession of the defaulters to secure the bank's dues.
Appointment of a receiver to seize the hypothecated vehicle and retain it in custody till further orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No. 175/2022 Arising out of O.A. No. 408/2022 (DRT-III, Delhi)
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Kulbir & Anr.
22.08.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Ms. Chetna Bhalla and Mr. Rachit Bigghe, Ld. Counsel for the appellant
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Affidavit of service has been filed. None is present for respondents.
I.A. No.480/2022
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.
Application stands disposed of.
Misc. appeal No.175/2022
Vide this order, I shall dispose of this appeal filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. against the order dated 30.05.2022 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.
The learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondents had approached the bank for a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- for the purchase of vehicle FORD ENDEAVOUR/TITANIUM 2.2 4X2 AT and had entered into a loan agreement under loan-cum-hypothecation scheme with the bank. She further submits that the appellant thereafter sanctioned the loan and disbursed an amount of Rs.24,94,429.00 to the dealer of the vehicle as per the request of the respondents. The respondents had agreed to pay the loan with interest in 60 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 Rs.23,65,510/- along with pendente lite and future interest and costs in respect of the loan in question.
-: 2 :-
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. seven installments were due and as on date, 10 installments are due from the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for appointment of Mr.Abir Negi, the official of the bank to take into custody the hypothecated vehicle, i.e. Commercial Vehicle FORD ENDEAVOUR/TITATIUM 2.2 4X2 AT having Engine No.MJ86177, Chassis No.MAJAXXMRWAMJ86177 and Registration No.HR77C-0006. 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.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments:-
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. Abir Negi, an officer of the appellant bank, as requested, as Receiver with power to seize the Commercial Vehicle FORD ENDEAVOUR/TITATIUM 2.2 4X2 AT having Engine No.MJ86177, Chassis No.MAJAXXMRWAMJ86177 and Registration No.HR-77C-0006 from wherever
-: 3 :-
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 possession of the vehicle will be taken between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The Receiver can take police assistance also, if so required. A report shall be submitted by the said Receiver before the DRT, regarding outcome of the said job being entrusted to him, on the next date of hearing.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interim appointment of a receiver to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle is permissible in case of loan default
Whether prayer to appoint receiver shall be allowed ex parte in the absence of respondents
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Citicorp Finance India Ltd. Vs. Varender SwaroopReferred¶18
Citicorp Finance India Ltd. Vs. Varender Swaroop, FAO(OS) No.335/2008
ICICI Bank Vs. Ram Chandra YadavReferred¶19
ICICI Bank Vs. Ram Chandra Yadav, CM(M) 1333/2016
ICICI Bank Vs. DharmendraReferred¶20
ICICI Bank Vs. Dharmendra, CM(M) No.384/2017
ICICI Bank Vs. Updesh NagarReferred¶21
ICICI Bank Vs. Updesh Nagar, FAO No.07/2016
ICICI Bank Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhandal & Ors.Referred¶22
ICICI Bank Vs. Gurvinder Singh Bhandal & Ors., W.P(C) No.9232/2016
ICICI Bank Vs. Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.Referred¶23
ICICI Bank Vs. Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Misc. Appeal No.293/2013
ICICI Bank Vs. Pritam SharmaReferred¶24
ICICI Bank Vs. Pritam Sharma, Misc. Appeal No.235/2018
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Kulbir & Anr.
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
