$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 161/2025 SURENDER KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Adv.

versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 24.11.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) read with Section 13 of the CommercialCourtsAct,challengingtheimpugnedorderdated15thFebruary, 2025 by which the Commercial Court had appointed a Receiver in respect of a Bharat Benz Truck bearing registration no. HR-62A-3533 (hereinafter, ‘the vehicle’).

3. The background of the case is that the Appellant had obtained a loan from the Respondent Bank and, according to the Bank, there was a failure of payment of a few instalments, which led to filing of a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the Commercial Court, Rohini, seeking certain interim reliefs.

4. In the said petition, the Commercial Court has passed the impugned ex-parte order on 15th February, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’), appointing Mr. Shailender Kumar as Receiver, authorised to take possession of the vehicle with police assistance, and the impugned order also stated that the same would remain in force for 90 days.

5. The present appeal was filed by the Appellant, challenging the impugned order on the ground that the seizure of the vehicle took place in complete violation of the impugned order on 15th May, 2025 i.e., post the 90 days period of possession granted by the Court vide the impugned order.

6. Further, it was also submitted that the appointed Receiver was also not present at the time when the seizure on 15th May, 2025 took place. Further allegationintheappealisthatanumberofpersons,whowererecoveryagents, were even armed when the vehicle was forcibly seized. At the time of the seizure, the truck was en-route for a commercial delivery. The said incident wasreportedtothepolice.TheAppellantthenreceivedaletterfromtheBank, stating that the vehicle would be disposed of.

7. Thereafter,uponhearingthe parties,the Courthadissued the following directions on 20th June, 2025:

“16. Considering the overall factual situation and keeping the value of the vehicle in mind, the following directions are issued:

1. TheAppellantshalldepositasumofRs.3lakhs with the Respondent-Bank by tomorrow i.e., 21st June, 2025 subject to which the vehicle shall be released to the Appellant and the same shall be permitted tobe commercially used and plied by the Appellant.

2. Within a further period of one month, a further amount of Rs.3 lakhs shall be deposited by the Appellant with the Bank.

3. There should be no sale of the vehicle during the pendency of this appeal.

4. The Receiver, who was appointed by the Trial Court i.e., Shri Shailender Kumar, shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

5. A specific affidavit countering all the allegations shall be filed by the Respondent Bank within a period of six weeks.

6. Ld. Principal District Judge shall give instructions that in cases where Receivers are being appointed for taking over of vehicles, the Bank ought to serve an advance copy of the petition, to the borrowers, so that the borrowers arenottakenbysurprisebyanyordersthatmaybe passed by the Court.”

As per the above order, the Appellant was to immediately pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs subject to which the vehicle was to be released. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was to be paid to the Bank within a month. The Receiver was also directed to be present before the Court.

8. The Appellant has admittedly not complied with the order dated 20^th June, 2025. The second instalment of Rs.3,00,000/- is stated to have not been paid. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that more than Rs.14,00,000/-

are overdue.

9. The vehicle was, however, released pursuant to orders of this Court. Under these circumstances, since the order of thi