Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Jagjit Singh Makkar

DRAT23 Nov 2022MISC APPEAL/289/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal challenging the DRT's refusal to appoint a receiver. Upholding the lower court's view due to the respondent's loan default, the Tribunal appointed an officer of the appellant bank as receiver with power to seize the specific vehicle from anyone in possession.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Abir Negi, an officer of the appellant bank, as Receiver with power to seize and retain the specific vehicle from wherever found.

Icici Bank Limited versus Jagjit Singh Makkar — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 289/2022 Arising out of O.A. No. 295/2022 (DRT-III, Delhi)

¶3

M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Jagjit Singh Makkar

¶4

23.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶5

Present: Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Ld. counsel for appellant

¶6

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

¶7

Appellant has challenged the order dated 23.09.2022 vide which the learned DRT has refused to accede to the prayer of the bank to appoint a Receiver for seizing the vehicle since the appellant has defaulted in the payment of last five installments.

¶8

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent had approached the bank for a loan of Rs.49,94,200/- for the purchase of vehicle, namely, MERCEDES BENZ E 220 and had entered into a loan agreement under loan-cum-hypothecation scheme with the bank. He further submits that the appellant thereafter sanctioned the loans and disbursed the amount to the dealer of the vehicle, as per the request of the respondent, after deducting disbursement charges in terms of the Loan documents. The respondent had agreed to pay the aforesaid two loans in 69 equated monthly installments of Rs.1,03,672/- along with interest @9% p.a. and had got hypothecated the above vehicle in favour of the appellant. However, according to the appellant, the respondent 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.295/2022) for recovery of Rs.35,47,377/- along with pendente lite and future interest and costs with respect to the loan in question.

¶9

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

¶10

J. Ashoka Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences & Ors. , (2017) 2 SCC 609

¶11

The Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Ball Bearings Corpn. Ltd. & Ors ., (1999) 7 SCC 488

¶12

-: 2 :-

¶13

Poddar Mills Ltd. vs. State Bank of India & Ors ., AIR 1992 BOM 277

¶14

State Bank of India vs. Trade Air Paper and Allied products (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ., AIR 1995 BOMBAY 268 (Full Bench)

¶15

M/s. Bhagya Product Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. , (2003) 69 DRJ 1(DB)

¶16

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Devender Nagar , C.R.P. 223/2004, decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

¶17

ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Rohit Kumar , F.A.O. No.51/2015 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

¶18

ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Shshi Satya , F.A.O. No.23/2015 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

¶19

ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Solitaire Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ., F.A.O. No.28/2015 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

¶20

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Collage Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , FAO 293/2015 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 15.09.2015

¶21

ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. SAtish Kumar , FAO 320/2015 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 30.10.2015

¶22

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prem Goswami , C.M.(M) No.379/2017 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 11.04.2017

¶23

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Kamal Bhayana & Anr ., Misc. Appeal No.173/2022 decided by this Tribunal on 22.08.2022

¶24

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel.

¶25

In view of above judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the respondent has defaulted in making the payment, this Tribunal is of the opinion that a Receiver be appointed to take possession of the vehicle, i.e. MERCEDES BENZ E 220 in question. Accordingly, this Tribunal appoints Mr. Abir Negi, an officer of the appellant bank, as requested, as Receiver with power to seize the vehicle namely, MERCEDEZE BENZ E22 having Engine No.65492080284733 and Chassis No.WDD2131046L020020 and Registration No.DL-9CAR-7007 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 construction equipment 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.

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record.

¶28

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶29

-pk

Icici Bank Limited v. Jagjit Singh Makkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Jagjit Singh Makkar

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

Similar cases

Mrs Kavita Sethi and Ors. versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors.

jagmohan satija and Ors. versus bank of baroda and Ors.

Vidhur Dutt and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Manoj Cables Ltd. and Anr.

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur versus Smt Santosh Devi and Ors.

State Bank of Bikaner and Ors. Jaipur versus Smt Santosh Devi and Ors.