Trial courts must expeditiously handle applications for appointment of receivers and vehicle sales to prevent delays in loan recovery processes.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 1036/2020 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM (M) 22/2020

2. The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner/Plaintiff - M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, "Bank") challenging the impugned order dated 23rd September 2019, by which the ld. Trial Court has simply adjourned the application filed by the Bank under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC, seeking permission to sell the hypothecated vehicle, which is currently in the Bank's custody.

3. The Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, "Defendant") had entered into an agreement for financing of the vehicle. Due to defaults in payment by the Defendant, a suit for recovery was filed by the Bank, along with an application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, for appointment of a receiver for the hypothecated vehicle, with power to sell. It is submitted that the receiver has already been appointed and the bank official has taken possession of the vehicle. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC came to be filed by the Bank seeking permission to sell the vehicle.

4. The grievance of ld. counsel for the Bank is that the application has simply been adjourned to 4th February, 2020. Ld. counsel submits that in M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Garewal, [FAO 49/2015, decided on 29th May, 2015], a ld. Single Judge of this Court has already passed directions as to the manner in which such cases are to be dealt with, especially in respect of loan transactions where there is a default in payment. He submits that despite these guidelines having been laid down, the Trial Courts are not following the same and are unnecessarily delaying the suit.

5. After hearing ld. counsel for the Bank and perusing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC as also the directions of this Court passed in Kamal Kumar Garewal (supra), it is seen that the Bank has already taken possession of the vehicle. This Court in M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Kalkal, [CM(M) 1821/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019] has already considered Kamal Kumar Garewal (supra) and held as under:

"6. Considering that the value of vehicles is likely to deteriorate as time passes on and also considering that there is a steep maintenance cost on the Bank, for preservation of the vehicles, a Ld. Single Judge of this Court under similar circumstances had passed the following directions in M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra):

"4. On careful consideration of the submissions made learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for ex parte appointment of a receiver. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and Mr. Venkat Rao, representative of the appellant bank is appointed as receiver to take the possession of Ritz car bearing registration No. HR-26BH-3155.

5. The receiver shall take over the possession of the vehicle from the respondent at the address(es) given in the loan application. If the vehicle is not available at the said address(es), the receiver shall be at liberty to recover the vehicle wherever found. However, the receiver shall not stop a running vehicle on the road to forcibly take out the driver to take the possession of the vehicle. The receiver shall also not make any attempt to block the passage of a car to bring it to a halt to take its possession.

6. The receiver shall avoid taking the possession of the vehicle if the vehicle is occupied by a woman who is not accompanied by a male member or an elderly, infirm or physically/mentally challenged person. In such cases, the receiver shall take the possession of the vehicle from the borrower's residence.

7. The receiver shall be at liberty