P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

ICICI bank vs. Amit Kuril - (High Court of Delhi) (07 Dec 2020)

Bank can sell the vehicle seized due to default in a public auction with prior written notice to the debtor

MANU/DE/2219/2020

Civil

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court adjourning the proceedings and not granting permission under Order XXXIX Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for sale of the vehicle which has been taken into custody by the receiver appointed by the Court.

It is submitted that, the Respondent defaulted in making the payment of the instalments and accordingly the subject suit for recovery was filed against the Respondent and application was moved to the concerned Trial Court for appointment of a receiver to take over possession of the subject vehicle. The possession of the vehicle was taken over on 2nd April, 2018. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 of CPC was filed on 14th August, 2018 seeking permission to sell the vehicle. The application is stated to be pending and no order on the application has been passed despite passage of substantial period.

In ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Kamal Kumar Garewal , this Court has directed that once the receiver takes possession of the vehicle, in case the Respondent is willing to make the payment of the outstanding amount on the date of possession, the vehicle is to be released to the Respondent on superdari. In case, he is not in a position to clear the entire outstanding instalments, 30 days time is to be given by the receiver to grant him an opportunity to make the payment and in case the Respondent fails to make the payment to the bank within 60 days, the receiver with prior permission of the Trial Court would be authorised to sell the vehicle in question in a public auction with prior written notice to the debtor. The notice is to be sent at the address mentioned in the loan agreement or to the address from which the vehicle is taken possession of to enable him to participate in the auction so that maximum amount can be fetched.

This judgment has been subsequently relied upon in several decisions of this Court. The petitioner relies on a judgment in ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Kalkal and in case of ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Meena Kumari & Anr. Wherein, in identical circumstances, this Court has granted permission to the bank to sell the vehicle through a public auction with notice to the Respondent.

The Petitioner submitted that, delay in sale of the repossessed vehicle substantially diminishes the market value of the vehicle causing loss to the bank. In view of the above, the bank is permitted to sell the vehicle through a proper public auction with notice to the Respondents. The notice be served through speed post as well as email address at the last known address of the Respondents in addition to the address mentioned on the loan documents as also the address from where the vehicle was repossessed. Respondent would also be permitted to participate in the auction as stipulated in M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Kamal Kumar Garewal. The application is allowed.

Tags : DEFAULT   VEHICLE   SALE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved