Skip to main content

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

In ICICI BANK vs AMIT KURI, appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court by the Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in simplicitor adjourning the proceedings and not granting permission under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC for sale of the vehicle which has been taken into custody by the receiver appointed by the Court.

The Petitioner contended 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 02.04.2018. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC was filed on 14.08.2018 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.

Order XXXIX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with interim sale of movable property and states that the Court may, on the application of any party to a suit, order the sale, by any person named in such order, and in such manner and on such terms as it thinks fit, of any movable property, being the subject-matter of such suit, on attached before judgment in such suit, which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or which for any other just and sufficient cause it may be desirable to have sold at once.

The Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Kamal Kumar Garewal, which had laid down the process for interim sale on application under Order XXXIX Rule 6  of the Code of Civil Procedure and also contended that delay in sale of the repossessed vehicle substantially diminishes the realisable market value of the vehicle causing loss to the bank.

The Delhi High Court accepted the argument of the Petitioner and allowed the appeal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more