$~4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO 436/2015

ICICI BANK LTD

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Punit K. Bhalla and Ms. Chetna

Bhalla and Ms. Isha Abrol, Advs.

versus

PAWAN KUMAR YADAV

..... Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

%

23.12.2015

CM No.32322/2015 (Exemption)

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

FAO 436/2015

2. This is an appeal directed against order dated 27.11.2015, passed by

the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ). By this order, the learned ADJ

has agreed to the appellant’s prayer for appointment of a receiver in respect

of the vehicle described as “HONDA CITY/1.5 V-MT bearing registration

No.HR-26CB-2003”, albeit on certain conditions.

3. Broadly, the conditions, which have been indicated in the impugned

order and, with which, the appellant is aggrieved, are as follows:-

(i)

The appointment of Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate along with Mr.

Gyanesh Kumar, a representative of the appellant / plaintiff, as a co-

receiver.

(ii)

The direction that the co-receiver, i.e. Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate,

FAO 436/2015

page 1 of 5

would be paid a fee of Rs.20,000/-; with a further direction that the said fee

would be paid within seven days from the date of the impugned order.

(iii) The receivers will ensure that the subject vehicle is kept in safe

custody, albeit within the territory of the court, i.e. the Central District.

(iv)

Upon payment of 50% of the loaned amount, the subject vehicle will

be released to the respondent or his representative on superdari.

(v)

The validity period of the order is confined to 30 days.

4. Mr. Bhalla says that these conditions are onerous and, in a sense,

unworkable.

5. It is Mr. Bhalla’s contention that since the suit amount is a sum of

Rs.5,56,312.59 inclusive of interest, the direction to pay fees of Rs.20,000/-

to a co-receiver appointed by a court, especially, when the very recovery of

the dues is uncertain, is a heavy burden cast on the appellant/plaintiff. It is

his contention that the appellant/plaintiff is ultimately dealing with public

funds. It is submitted that the receivership order passed by the trial court

can be easily executed by an officer of the appellant/plaintiff.

6. As regards the other condition, which requires the receiver to keep the

subject vehicle within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, i.e. the Central

District, Mr. Bhalla says that the appellant/plaintiff does not have a godown

within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is the submission of the

learned counsel that hiring a place within Central District, will involve

expenses, which, again, makes the proposition of recovery by instituting the

present action unworkable and impracticable.

7. Mr. Bhalla, as indicated above, is also aggrieved by the condition

contained in the order which directs release of the subject vehicle to the

FAO 436/2015

page 2 of 5

respondent /defendant on deposit of only 50% of the loaned amount.

He says that the principal amount loaned to the respondent / defendant was a

sum of Rs.7 lakhs, and because, defaults were committed, the suit amount

came to a figure of Rs.5,56,312.59. 50% of the loaned amount, according to

the learned counsel, would leave a huge monetary gap, which may,

ultimately, be difficult to bridge, as there is no other security except the

subject vehicle.

8. Insofar as the other condition placed in the impugned order, which is

indicative of the fact that the order will remain in operation only for a period

of 30 days, Mr. Bhalla says, that the said condition is also unworkable for

the reason that more often than not it is very difficult to trace the subject

vehicle. In case the appellant / plaintiff is unable to trace the subject vehicle

within the given period, it would have to, once again, move the court by way

of a fresh application.

9. For all these reasons,