Trial Courts must promptly decide applications for receivership and sales of hypothecated assets to prevent depreciation and safeguard creditor rights.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 7326/2020 (exemption)

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

CM (M) 232/2020

2. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 27th April, 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.3,45,067.99/- 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.5,68,000/- in respect of a car i.e., CHEVROLET ENJOY/1.3 LS 8 STR, registered in Delhi, 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 @16.25%, in 36 equal instalments of Rs.10,549/- each. The entire amount had been disbursed to the Defendant. The Trial Court had, vide order dated 16th 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 Receivers and directed the seizure of the vehicle.

5. Since then, the vehicle has been lying in the control of the Bank. Immediately after taking possession of the vehicle, the Bank moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC sometime in 2018 itself. Notice was issued in the application. The prayer in the said application reads as under:

"a) Direct the plaintiff to sell the said vehicle namely "CHEVROLET ENJOY/1.3 LS 8 STR" BEARING REGISTRATION NO. DL-10CB-6898" and direct the plaintiff to adjust the sale proceeds towards the outstanding amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff; and

b) Pass such other/further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

6. This application continues to remain pending even though the suit itself has now come to be decreed on 27th April, 2019. The Trial Court has passed a decree for a sum of Rs.3,28,299.30/- with interest. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"22. In these facts and circumstances the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the amount of Rs.3,28,229.30p (Rs.1,81,350/- + Rs.1,46,879.30/-) against the defendants in their joint and several liability along with pendente lite and future interest @6% p.a. on total sum adjudged from the date of institution of the suit till realization. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms."

7. The grievance of the Bank is that despite the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC having been filed, even in the final decree permission has not been given to the Bank for selling the vehicle.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Bhalla, ld. counsel for the Bank, that the Bank is incurring parking charges for keeping the vehicle. It is further submitted that the suit itself having been decreed, no useful purpose would be served by not selling the vehicle. Ld. counsel also submits that despite orders having been passed in M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Kalkal, [CM(M) 1821/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019] and M/s. ICICI Bank Limited v. Nidhi Sharma, [CM (M) 1814/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019], which rely upon ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Garewal, [FAO 49/2015, decided on 29th May, 2015], and the same having been placed before the Trial Court, the same were not considered by the Trial Court and the application seeking permission for sale of the vehicle has simply been adjourned.

9. After hearing ld. counsel for the Bank, there is no doubt that the appli