IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
ICICI Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Priya Baveja - Respondent
CM (M) 16 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2020
Bank - Recovery of Loan - Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC - Section 151 CPC - Public Auction - Court modified impugned order to permit the Bank to sell the vehicle through a public auction with notice to the Defendant, in line with previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The Bank filed a suit for recovery of a loan against the Defendant and obtained a decree. The Bank sought permission to sell the hypothecated vehicle, which was not granted by the Trial Court. The Bank appealed, arguing that the vehicle was incurring parking charges and its value was deteriorating.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court's failure to decide the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC at the time of the final order in the suit was irrational. The Court modified the impugned order to permit the Bank to sell the vehicle through a public auction with notice to the Defendant, in line with previous judgments.
Issues: Failure of Trial Court to decide application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC, permission to sell hypothecated vehicle, and delay in disposal of applications for sale of vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Bank should be permitted to sell the vehicle to recover the amount to satisfy the decree, and directed that applications for sale of the vehicle should be disposed of within 60 days, except in case of any unusual or exceptional circumstances.
Final Decision: The impugned order was modified to permit the Bank to sell the vehicle through a public auction with notice to the Defendant. The Court directed the circulation of the present order and previous judgments to all district courts and civil judges.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) - CM APPL. 980/2020 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM (M) 16/2020
2. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 21 st August, 2019 in view of the fact that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC, which was filed by M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, "Bank"), has not been decided by the Trial Court, despite the suit itself having been decreed.
3. The background is that the Bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,04,552.73/- against the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, "Defendant") in which initially an application for appointment of Receiver was filed. The case of the Bank is that the Defendant had availed of a vehicle loan of Rs.8,94,000/- in respect of a car i.e., Honda City SV/MT Diesel, registered in Uttar Pradesh, which was disbursed to the Defendant under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the Bank.
4. The Defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount, along with interest @10.5%, in 60 equal instalments of Rs. 19,216/- each. The entire amount had been disbursed to the Defendant. The Trial Court had, vide order dated 27 th March, 2018, appointed a Receiver for taking possession of the car. In the said order, the Trial Court appointed one of the Bank officials as the Receiver and directed the seizure of the vehicle. The said order reads as under:
"Issue summons to defendant no.1 through all modes i.e. PF/RC/approved courier/registered post/speed post as well as affixation on filing of PF by the plaintiff within three weeks from today, returnable on 07.08.2018.
An application under Order 40 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff for appointment of receiver. Heard on the application. In view of submissions made by counsel for plaintiff and the averments made in the application, the application is allowed.
It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner financed an amount of Rs.8,94,000/- to the respondent vide loan agreement dated 23.03.2015 for the purchase of a vehicle namely "CITY/SV MT DIESEL" bearing registration No. UP-16BA-5038 and under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the said vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the petitioner. The loan was to be repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 19,216/-. For the said loan, the plaintiff bank maintained account No. LAGUR00032039643. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that defendant in terms of the Loan documents executed had paid an amount of Rs.5,38,832/- (28 EMIS) and defaulted for an amount of Rs. 1,14,512/- (06 EMIS) and Rs. 13,394/- towards late payment and cheque bouncing charges totalling to Rs. 1,27,906/- besides future installments of Rs. 4,99,616/- as on 21.02.2018. The plaintiff in terms of the loan documents executed by the defendant, issued a notice dated 11.12.2017 upon the defendant calling to repay the loan amount. Prayer has been made for appointment of Mr. S. Jafri, Representative of the petitioner as the receiver to take possession of the vehicle in question. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the preservance of hypothecated vehicle, I consider it just and convenient to appoint Mr. S. Jafri as a Receiver to take ex-parte ad-interim possession of the hypothecated vehicle bearing registration No. UP-16BA-5038 till final disposal of the application on merits with the following stipulations:
(i) that the receiver is directed to first give offer to the respondent for making payment of defaulted EMIs/amount before seizure of the vehicle.
(ii) that if the respondent make payment of the outstanding installments as on date of possession, the receiver shall release the vehicle in question to the respondent on Superdari subject to an undertaking by the respondents to the receiver for regular payment of future monthly installments till the expiry of the tenure, and a declaration not to part with the vehicle or create third party interest in the vehicle until the entire amount
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.