SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Del) 2125

ANU MALHOTRA
ICICI BANK LTD – Appellant
Versus
HEMA GERA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. Vide the present appeal FAO 403/2018, the appellant assails the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 and 09.08.2018 of the Trial Court of the learned ADJ-03 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby it was observed by the learned Trial Court to the effect that before passing an appropriate order under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, it was considered expedient to issue summons of the suit to the defendant on filing of PF and by way of registered post with acknowledgement due and all other modes of service as approved. The appellant thus seeks the appointment of an ex-parte receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle MARUTI SWIFT / LXI bearing registration no. HR-51BM-8342 from the possession of the respondent.

2. The grievance of the appellant is to the effect that the ex-parte receiver as prayed by the appellant for seizure of the vehicle referred hereinabove was not appointed. It has been averred by the appellant that the respondent in November, 2016 had requested the appellant for grant of loan to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of the vehicle MARUTI SWIFT / LXI bearing registration no. HR-51BM-8342 and entered into a loan agreement under the loan cum h

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top